Third Of Tenants Face Underoccupancy Cut

Cutting housing benefit for working-age tenants who underoccupy their homes will affect around a third of those living in social housing, the government has revealed.

An impact assessment from the Department for Work and Pensions estimates that limiting housing benefit payments to the number of bedrooms that a social tenant actually needs will affect 670,000 people living in social housing.


















The report, released yesterday as part of the government’s Welfare Reform Bill, says most tenants only underoccupy by one bedroom, and will lose around £11 a week in 2013/14, when the change comes into play.

Those with two or more bedrooms that they do not use will lose an average of £20 per week, the assessment says. It also found that tenants in the north, east midlands and Wales were more likely to be affected than those living in London and the south east.

Around 46 per cent of social tenants in the north east will see their housing benefit cut by around £12 a week, while only 19 per cent of London tenants will be affected.

The National Housing Federation condemned the plans. David Orr, chief executive, said: ‘Ministers have long promised to protect the vulnerable and yet these plans could force thousands of people to move out of homes they have lived in for many years.

‘As a result of these changes, thousands of couples are no longer able to offer their grown-up children a room to stay in should their circumstances change, and many single parents will be pushed away from friends, relatives and support networks.’

Under occupancy penalty could force struggling families into hands of loan shark.

Plans to slash housing benefit for hundreds of thousands of low income families could lead to a huge surge in the number of people turning to loan sharks and doorstep lenders as they struggle to pay their bills, campaigners warned today.

The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) intends to use the Welfare Reform Bill to slash housing benefit for tenants living in homes deemed too large for their needs - even if they have lived there for decades.

The measure will hit 670,000 council and housing association tenants - a third of all working-age housing benefit claimants in the social rented sector across Great Britain.

The DWP has suggested that households seeing their benefit reduced - by 13% for those with one 'spare' room and 23% for two or more 'spare' rooms - should 'move to accommodation which better reflects the size and composition of their household' - or make up the shortfall from other income sources.

Each claimant is expected to lose an average of £676 a year if the Government succeeds in introducing the measure in 2013. Tenants will face a tough choice of either downsizing to a smaller home to avoid the penalty or staying put and paying a much higher level of rent from their own resources.

But even for those who do look to downsize there is by no means any guarantee they will find a smaller social home to move into. Around 180,000 social tenants in England are 'under-occupying' two-bedroom homes, but just 68,000 one bedroom social homes became available for letting in a single year (2009/10).

The average social housing household in receipt of housing benefit has an annual income of just £8,320 a year. The proposed 'under occupation' penalty will leave vulnerable families with a shortfall of £676 to make up from their savings or other allowances. Many are at risk of falling into debt because they simply would not have the money to pay all their bills.

Currently, around 2.5m people borrow from doorstep lenders at rates often in the region of 272% APR for new customers. A further 200,000 are estimated to borrow from loan sharks, who can charge anything up to 2,000% APR. A majority of those financially excluded are social housing tenants.

If a tenant took out a £700 loan to cover the under occupation penalty with the doorstep lender Provident, they would pay an APR of 272.2% on the loan, according to a typical example given on their website. That would mean repaying £1,274 back over the course of a year. For people going to illegal loan sharks the rate could be ten times as much.

Federation chief executive David Orr said: "The Government's plans to penalise hundreds of thousands of low income families who are adjudged to be 'under occupying' their property is harsh and regressive.

"In the vast majority of cases, people will simply not be able to make up the shortfall themselves and could end up being sucked into poverty and spiralling levels of debt.

"The Government has repeatedly said that it will look after the most vulnerable, but pushing thousands of people into the arms of doorstep lenders and illegal loan sharks is wrong and will lead to a huge degree anxiety for many of the poorest in our society."

Niall Cooper, National Coordinator of Church Action on Poverty said: "There is a real danger that people will be pushed into the hands of loan sharks by the housing benefit cuts.

"Many tenants are already struggling to make ends meet, and can ill afford the cost of borrowing from high cost lenders who routinely charge anywhere between 200%-2,000% APR for loans.

"For some, this will push them over the edge - into a spiral of debt, or even homelessness."

Dustbowl Britain: The New Depression

YES, it’s official: this could be worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s – men slumped on street corners and kids with bare feet.

Inflation, fascism and economic war in Europe. “This is the most serious financial crisis we’ve seen at least since the 1930s, if not ever,” says Sir Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England.












Now, I may be missing something, but isn’t this just the kind of alarmist headline-grabbing remark that central bankers are supposed NOT to make in case it spooks the markets? It’s people like me who are usually criticised for resorting to sensational forecasts about Great Depressions and the like. The commentariat is being done out of a job by the godfather of prudence. Whatever happened to “Keep Calm And Carry On”?

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is said to be livid. Only 24 hours before King forecast the end of civilisation as we know it, Cameron had told the country to “bring on the can-do optimism”. Well, not in the Bank of England, clearly.

It’s hard not to read this as an implicit condemnation of government economic policy. At the very least, the PM and his Chancellor look as out of touch as the Labour PM, Jim Callaghan, when he said “crisis, what crisis”, just as the International Monetary Fund was about to take over the reins of the British economy in 1976.

So what has spooked Mervyn? Well, it’s the Greeks isn’t it, stupid? Actually, it isn’t the Greek default – it’s us. Mervyn’s panic attack coincided with the news that ratings agency Moody’s had downgraded the status of a raft of British banks just as inter-bank lending was seizing up.

Essentially, Moody’s is warning people with money in banks including Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander, Lloyds and so on that they might not get it all back. Why? Because the banks are becoming stressed again, just like 2008, and there is no chance that this time the Government will have the will or the means to bail them out. There’s very little public money left and the economy is slowing to a halt, which will make it hard for the Government to pay its own debts, let alone that of the banks.

The bailout of the UK banks in 2008-09 required £1.3 trillion, according to Mervyn King’s own figures. And what did we get for putting up all that money? Well, Stephen Hester of RBS got £11 million last year. Bank bonuses accounted for another £13 billion. The rest disappeared into the bowels of our rapacious financial institutions.

So what now? Well, if there isn’t any public money, let’s just print some. The last round of quantitative easing – creating more money – placed £200bn in the banks’ accounts in 2009.

What happens is this: the Bank of England electronically creates money, which it uses to buy bonds from the banks. This injects funds directly into the banks’ balance sheets, wiping out their losses and “restoring the health of the financial system”. The money is supposed then to be loaned to small businesses and people wanting mortgages, thus boosting economic growth.

Except that this didn’t happen. The banks hoarded it instead and paid themselves huge bonuses. All QE1 really succeeded in doing was increase inflation to 5%, which is generally what happens when governments print money. This has eroded people’s savings, pensions and salaries, meaning that they haven’t been buying much in the shops. Which in turn is why the economy is sliding back into recession. Britain has one of the lowest growth rates in the OECD and has one of the highest fiscal deficits. Stick that in your budget, Mr Osborne.

So why on earth is the governor printing another £75bn of QE? It looks like the economic equivalent of blood-letting: a pointless medical procedure that only weakens the patient. This is the great unanswered question of the age: why are policy-makers unable to see any solution to economic crisis that doesn’t involve stuffing the mouths of bankers with gold?

When historians look back at this period they will criticise governments for inactivity, short-termism and denial. But they will condemn them utterly for throwing oceans of public money at the very people who caused the crisis and were least to be relied upon to resolve it.

Instead of handing money to banks, in the vain hope that it will boost economic activity, why doesn’t the government hand it to poor people?

I’m not joking. At least lower-income groups can be relied upon to spend the cash in the high streets – in shops like Tesco, which has just announced its worst sales figures for 20 years. Give them VAT rebates, interest-free loans, tax “holidays”, elderly care grants, home improvement loans – anything to get money into the system.

Giving liquidity to people who don’t have it is the surest possible way of boosting economic activity. QE is like trying to get the car started by giving money to oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the bankers would respond that, yes it’s all very well giving money to people other than us. But if you don’t hand over your cash, we’ll just go bust like Lehman Brothers, and that will cause a global financial and economic collapse. Ha ha.

And of course, they’re right – they are too big to fail. If, say, RBS went under, the shockwaves would be so great that bank lending would halt overnight. This means that companies which depend on short-term loans from banks to manage their accounts would go under too. International trade would freeze because there would be no credit for exporters.

There would also be a run on the banks, as happened in October 2008, when people and businesses withdrew their cash from banks like Northern Rock and HBOS because they didn’t believe their funds were safe. In 2008, according to the then chancellor, Alistair Darling, Britain was 24 hours away from the ATMs closing and people being denied even cash withdrawals.

Could we really be going back to all that? Well, yes – the Belgian-French bank, Dexia, has just gone bust for the second time in three years because people started withdrawing funds at an unsustainable rate and its share price collapsed. It could be the first of many, and governments cannot bail them all out.

Which means that if you are lucky enough to have more than £85,000 in any one bank – the limit of the deposits guaranteed by the government’s deposit insurance scheme – then you’d be well advised to get it out sooner rather than later.

I know that sounds alarmist,

inflammatory, but listen closely, and that’s what the Guv’nor is saying.

But there is an alternative. Instead of pouring more printed money into the banks, why not nationalise them completely? We already own RBS and most of Lloyds. The nationalised banks could be used to set up smaller, more responsible banks with a remit to lend to industry rather than speculate on derivatives and the commodities market, which is what they have been doing since 2009.

If the financial crisis really is as bad as King says it is, and we are about to drown in a hyperinflationary sovereign debt crisis, then the Government would be able to freeze asset deposited in the banks and conduct a kind of debt “triage”.

Those with more than £85,000 in deposits would be required to accept a proportionate reduction in the value of their deposits in order to stabilise the financial system and remove the debt burden on the state. This could be done by converting bank deposits into government bonds, redeemable at a later date. This is rather like QE in reverse. Needless to say, all bank bonuses would be scrapped, and bankers put on civil servants’ salaries.

There would be howls of anguish from the rich at their wealth being hijacked in this way. But they should be told that the alternatives are much worse: a run of bank failures, which means they would lose ALL their funds over £85,000. Bondholders would not just have a haircut – they would be decapitated by default or by hyperinflation.

There is still a great deal of wealth in Britain – £7 trillion in household assets alone, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility – but this is largely held by the very wealthy and “sterilised” in property and other assets. If we are facing the ultimate crash, the Government will have no choice but to commandeer these resources and use them constructively to manage the national finances. President Franklin D Roosevelt did something similar in 1933 when he ordered all the gold held by individuals to be deposited with the government.

I doubt if any politician has the cojones to put this kind of scheme forward right now – most of them are intellectually in hock to the City of London anyway. But what is not in doubt is that the Bank of England is already thinking the unthinkable.

Various schemes for crisis debt restructuring are surely already being run through the Bank of England’s computer models, and though they can’t admit it, this will inevitably involve some control of bank deposits and an orderly run down of debt. The Government will probably opt to raid pension funds first, because they are harder to move offshore. This is what the Argentine government did in 2001 when it defaulted.

What the Bank of England governor is warning of is a truly apocalyptic financial event. The Government has already seized large parts of the banking system and resorted to money printing. It may not be long before it breaks into people’s accounts directly. You have been warned.

Let’s Get A Tighter Grip On Defence Spending

Britain’s performance on defence procurement is poor – it’s time to make those responsible face the consequences.














Equipped to do the job: British armoured forces in action in Afghanistan.

The history of defence procurement is not a happy one. Ensuring that our Armed Forces get the best possible equipment they need, when they need it, is easier said than done. Today, Labour will publish the findings of a comprehensive 10-month study into defence acquisition policy that will inform a wholesale review of party policy launched by Ed Miliband last year. There are few benefits of being in opposition, but being able to take a step back and reflect is one.

Labour can be proud of the fact that we increased the defence budget by 10 per cent in real terms during our years in power. Defence procurement was reformed and equipment, from drones to personal kit, was transformed – so much so that, by 2009, the last chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, remarked that our troops had never been so well equipped. The welfare of our forces, and crucially that of their families, was also improved.

But defence procurement is a complex and challenging activity. The lead times are enormous and technology changes So what is to be done? It is often said that there is a “conspiracy of optimism” in defence procurement. At best, there is a tendency to muddle through in the hope that both the customer and supplier “get there in the end”. At worst, defence procurement has been based on unrealistic assumptions and over-ambitious plans that balloon beyond all recognition, along with the costs. This conspiracy of optimism has to be replaced by a culture of consequences.

This must apply to the defence industry. In the past, the taxpayer has been left carrying the can for some of its lamentable failings, with some suppliers seeing the UK government as little more than a cash cow. Too many times, once a company or consortia has been awarded a contract, the price begins to ramp up.

First, we need firmer and fairer contracts that incentivise good performance, with industry asked to provide higher warranties for performance. There should be far greater penalties for those that fail to deliver on time and on cost, and the MoD should not be afraid of taking companies back to the initial approval stage, or indeed calling time on contracts that are simply not working. Experience should triumph over hope.

Second, in the case of de facto and actual monopoly suppliers to the MoD, there should be what is known as “open book” contracting once a contract is let. This means far greater transparency of costs and profits in a long-term partnering approach. Within such an approach, there should be not just an agreed price but an agreed target level of profit, too. If the MoD’s requirements change due to operational imperatives – where, say, our Armed Forces need something extra on top of the original specifications – industry must not be allowed to cash in and make super-normal profits on the change in price.

And third, we need shorter, less complex projects with streamlined processes and decision-making. In defence procurement, time is money.

But we also need that same culture of consequences inside the MoD. In the commercial world, promotion and bonuses are based on performance. But in the MoD, there is little sense that poorer performing individuals in very senior roles are ever held accountable. The people leading Integrated Project Teams (IPTs), who manage major procurement programmes, should have the authority, accountability and responsibility for project execution. Currently, they are given as little as four or five days’ training and tend to come from either the Civil Service or from the military – this does not always make them best able to manage hugely challenging commercial contracts.

These problems are compounded by the frequent changes in project managers. The norm in the MoD is to move jobs every two years. This leads to constant changes of strategy and emphasis, which are not helpful and avoid the need for managers to live with the consequences of their actions.

This autumn, the Government will publish its White Paper on the defence industry, but all the signs are that it will have little to say except – as is the case with the Bombardier contract for new trains – that we should give up at home and simply “buy off the shelf” from abroad. Today, Labour will present a host of ideas to reform defence procurement. But in beginning to shape policy for the future, all parties need to be honest about the past and learn from their mistakes.

Michael Dugher MP is shadow minister for defence equipment rapidly, as do our requirements, with the enemy having a say in all of this. And despite all the investment and improvements, we made mistakes. The problems of defence procurement have plagued all governments, but the huge delays and massive cost overruns continued on our watch.

That is why Labour in government commissioned the Gray Report in 2009 to identify the serious failures in acquisition. The current Government liked the report so much that it hired the author, Bernard Gray, to head up defence equipment and support at the Ministry of Defence.

The fact is Britain’s record is poor. Over the period for which there is consistent data (2003-2010), major projects costing the taxpayer in excess of £200 million, and those that were planned to take four to five years between “Main Gate” decision and entry into service, exceeded their most likely out-turn estimate of costs by more than 10 per cent on average – with extremes of up to 40 per cent. These programmes also slipped by 40-50 per cent – some by as much as 250 per cent – from their expected schedule.

So what is to be done? It is often said that there is a “conspiracy of optimism” in defence procurement. At best, there is a tendency to muddle through in the hope that both the customer and supplier “get there in the end”. At worst, defence procurement has been based on unrealistic assumptions and over-ambitious plans that balloon beyond all recognition, along with the costs. This conspiracy of optimism has to be replaced by a culture of consequences.

This must apply to the defence industry. In the past, the taxpayer has been left carrying the can for some of its lamentable failings, with some suppliers seeing the UK government as little more than a cash cow. Too many times, once a company or consortia has been awarded a contract, the price begins to ramp up.

First, we need firmer and fairer contracts that incentivise good performance, with industry asked to provide higher warranties for performance. There should be far greater penalties for those that fail to deliver on time and on cost, and the MoD should not be afraid of taking companies back to the initial approval stage, or indeed calling time on contracts that are simply not working. Experience should triumph over hope.

Second, in the case of de facto and actual monopoly suppliers to the MoD, there should be what is known as “open book” contracting once a contract is let. This means far greater transparency of costs and profits in a long-term partnering approach. Within such an approach, there should be not just an agreed price but an agreed target level of profit, too. If the MoD’s requirements change due to operational imperatives – where, say, our Armed Forces need something extra on top of the original specifications – industry must not be allowed to cash in and make super-normal profits on the change in price.

And third, we need shorter, less complex projects with streamlined processes and decision-making. In defence procurement, time is money.

But we also need that same culture of consequences inside the MoD. In the commercial world, promotion and bonuses are based on performance. But in the MoD, there is little sense that poorer performing individuals in very senior roles are ever held accountable. The people leading Integrated Project Teams (IPTs), who manage major procurement programmes, should have the authority, accountability and responsibility for project execution. Currently, they are given as little as four or five days’ training and tend to come from either the Civil Service or from the military – this does not always make them best able to manage hugely challenging commercial contracts.

These problems are compounded by the frequent changes in project managers. The norm in the MoD is to move jobs every two years. This leads to constant changes of strategy and emphasis, which are not helpful and avoid the need for managers to live with the consequences of their actions.

This autumn, the Government will publish its White Paper on the defence industry, but all the signs are that it will have little to say except – as is the case with the Bombardier contract for new trains – that we should give up at home and simply “buy off the shelf” from abroad. Today, Labour will present a host of ideas to reform defence procurement. But in beginning to shape policy for the future, all parties need to be honest about the past and learn from their mistakes.

Michael Dugher MP is shadow minister for defence equipment.

Liberal Democrats Vow To Fight Rightwing Policies Of 'Ruthless' Tories

Nick Clegg signals combative approach to coalition describing PM's party as political enemies who must be taken on.












Nick Clegg speaking at the Liberal Democrat party conference.

Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats have vowed to face down "ruthless" and "extreme" forces in the Tory party to protect the British people from right-wing policies that would widen inequality and benefit the rich.

At a rally on Saturday night to open his party's annual conference in Birmingham, Clegg underlined the Lib Dems' newly combative approach to the coalition, describing David Cameron's party as "political enemies" who must be taken on when necessary in the national interest. After a traumatic year during which the Lib Dems' popularity has plummeted and their leader has been accused of abandoning his party's principles, Clegg struck a markedly more assertive note.

While trumpeting his party's successes so far in influencing health and tax policies, he said it was more prepared than ever to "fight tooth and nail" for what was right. "We are prepared to be awkward," he said. "We are not here to make things easy. We're here to put things right."

In an interview with the Observer, his deputy Simon Hughes goes further, telling the Conservatives they have no mandate to drive through a rightwing agenda. Hughes says the Tories have shown themselves to be "ruthless" operators in the first 16 months of the coalition over the referendum on electoral reform and boundary changes and says the resurgent right of the party is "extreme" on issues such as Europe and tax.

He says Tories must come to their senses and realise that they did not win the last election – and that they rely on the Lib Dems for power.

"Not only did they not win but they got a third of those who voted," he said. "The Tory party is not the dominant party in British politics that it used to be. It is absolutely not the dominant force in Scotland and Wales that it used to be. The Tory right have forgotten that."

In a rebuff to Conservative hardliners he adds: "There is absolutely no majority in parliament for your views. If there is a coalition government in the national interest then extreme remedies and answers are not appropriate."

The comments are bound to infuriate Cnservatives as the conference season opens. Many Tories are beginning to resent profoundly the way the Lib Dems are already watering down Tory changes on health and education and blocking Cameron from developing a more hardline approach on Europe.

Clegg and his ministers are now convinced they can claw back some of their pre-election popularity if they can demonstrate that they are reining in the Conservatives and stamping their own mark on government. Deep division between the coalition partners will surface in Birmingham over tax, welfare, health, pensions and last month's riots.

The party leadership will announce it will veto the abolition of the 50p tax rate for people earning over £150,000 – a key demand of the Tory right – unless and until other measures, such as a mansion tax, are imposed. It will also unveil plans to exempt the first £12,500 of earnings from tax, raising the target from its current level of £10,000.

Hughes says the party has to make the fight against wage inequality in the private sector a key theme. He said he is pushing hard for measures to limit the gap between the highest and lowest paid staff in the private sector. "The differentials are obscene and you really cannot just stand by," he said. "Liberal Democrats have to be clear. If Labour is really relaxed about the stinking rich, some of us are not relaxed about it."

Hughes also insisted that reform of party funding was essential to stop the Conservatives running ruthless campaigns – as they had against electoral reform. "The Tories can be nastier – with a result – if they are allowed to collect more and more money legitimately," he said.

On tax, he said the UK properties of wealthy non-domiciled individuals should be hit. "It would be entirely reasonable to say that if someone is not domiciled in this country but has six mansions they should be paying more into the system." Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, will announce the commitment of £600m to boost infrastructure projects and will attack bankers who fail to lend to businesses. "Our judgments about what needs to be done should be driven by the liberal economy we want to build," he will say.

On Saturday night, the Lib Dem equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, dismissed suggestions that Cameron had been a major force behind the move to legalise gay marriage when she claimed ownership of the policy. "Conference, this is a Liberal Democrat policy," she said.

Clegg said his party had shown courage entering a coalition that was now shaping policy by "cutting taxes, not for the rich, but for millions of people on low and middle incomes". The Lib Dems could have "bottled" the chance to govern but instead "rose to the challenge", he said, "and we did it knowing it meant working with our political enemies and almost certain short-term unpopularity".

The party leadership was celebrating the failure of former health spokesman Evan Harris to force a vote on the NHS. The Lib Dems believe they are making more progress to dilute the reforms behind the scenes.

Partner Abuse 'Normal', Say Vulnerable Teens

Teenagers from vulnerable backgrounds are experiencing high levels of abuse in their personal relationships, research by the NSPCC charity suggests.









More than half the girls reported physical violence in at least one of their relationships.

Interviews with 44 boys and 38 girls aged 13 to 18 - who were not in mainstream school - found physical, emotional and sexual abuse was common.

More than half the girls said they had been in a sexually violent relationship before they were 18.

A quarter of boys said they had dated physically aggressive partners.

More than half of the girls reported that they had been a victim of physical violence in at least one of their intimate relationships.

Two-thirds of the girls interviewed and a third of the boys reported experiencing emotional violence, most commonly controlling behaviour.

The report, called Standing On My Own Two Feet, contacted the 82 young people through a range of agencies and organisations working with disadvantaged young people across the south-west of England.

Some of the teenagers interviewed had been permanently excluded from school, were young offenders or teenage mothers.

Forced to have sex

Emma, who was interviewed for the study, told researchers how she had been forced into having sex "quite a few times" when she was 13.

"I've never shouted rape or anything. I've never been able to say that I've been raped but it's not like I've given consent. In certain situations it has been pushed on me and it has been really horrible."

Ellie told researchers: "He [boyfriend] was really persistent... he like held my hands up against the wall, and I was like, 'Seriously get off, I don't like want to'.

"And he was like 'Oh no, come on, it'll be fun, it'll be like a laugh' and stuff. And so he did and I was just like... I don't know, 'cos it really hurt.

"It was horrible, and so I just laid there like crying, like tears running down my face."

Fourteen-year-old Jo said her boyfriend had "only hit me in the face once".

"He used to push me down the stairs and stuff though."

Sasha, who has been in care, said: "I felt I had to do it… like a friend would say to me 'Just do it' and stuff like that.

"Sometimes the boy would say 'Oh just do it' and like go on and on. I'm just like 'OK'."

While half of all those taking part in the research had been assigned a social worker, most did not reveal their partner's violence. Many said welfare professionals were not interested in this aspect of their lives.

"Control and violence seem to be so prevalent in these relationships that girls are unable to recognise its impact"
Christine Barter Report author, Bristol University

The study follows on from a survey in 2009 - also by Bristol University on behalf of the NSPCC - of 1,400 girls aged 13 to 17, who were not considered to be from vulnerable backgrounds.

It found a third suffered sexual abuse in a relationship and a quarter experienced violence at the hands of their boyfriends.

'Child welfare issue'

Christine Barter, from Bristol University, who led this latest research for the NSPCC, said: "Tragically, control and violence seem to be so prevalent in these relationships that girls are unable to recognise its impact - it is an everyday happening.

"Many girls found it very difficult to see that their partner's behaviour is abusive. The government and those working with young people need to recognise that teenage partner violence is an even more profound child welfare issue for disadvantaged young people.

"This will help professionals assess the possibility of partner violence and challenge young people's beliefs that this abuse is a normal part of teenage relationships."

Andrew Flanagan, chief executive of the NSPCC, said: "It's appalling that violence in these relationships seems to be just part of daily life.

"These findings underline how important it is for children to be educated about abusive behaviour and for them to feel able to seek help to prevent it happening."

Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone said: "We need to challenge the attitudes and behaviours that foster an acceptance of abusive relationships by intervening as early as possible.

"Bringing the issue out in the open will help teenagers feel confident to challenge abusive behaviour when they experience it or see it."

David Cameron Under Pressure To Soften Hardline Deficit Strategy

Institute of Directors, the Prince's Trust and the TUC join the opposition in demanding action to boost the flagging economy.












David Cameron has been urged to take urgent action to boost the economy.

David Cameron is under growing pressure to soften his hardline deficit reduction strategy after a wave of redundancies in central and local government sent unemployment surging beyond 2.5m.

With the City predicting joblessness would hit 2.75m next year, the Institute of Directors, the Prince's Trust and the TUC joined the opposition in demanding urgent action to boost the flagging economy.

Cameron admitted the official figures – which included the highest female unemployment in 23 years and almost a million young people shut out of the labour market – were "disappointing".

But he insisted that the coalition would not do a U-turn as it attempted to repair Britain's public finances over the course of the current parliament. He said: "All governments are having to take difficult decisions about cutting public spending. Anyone standing here would have to make those decisions. This government is reducing the welfare bill and reforming public sector pensions. If we weren't taking those steps you would have to make deeper cuts in the rest of the public sector."

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said the government's plan for an expanding private sector to replace jobs lost as a result of the austerity programme was not working after the Office for National Statistics reported on Tuesday that 111,000 jobs were lost in the public sector in the three months to June 2011, against 41,000 created in the rest of the economy.

"The message to all those people who have lost their jobs is the prime minister is not going to change course," he said. "For every two jobs being cut in the public sector, less than one is being created in the private sector. Isn't that the clearest sign yet that your policy just isn't working?"

Ministers had been preparing for poor unemployment figures after evidence emerged in recent months to show the economy's recovery from the deep recession of 2008-09 had almost stalled.

The ONS said joblessness was rising on both measures used by the government, the internationally agreed Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the more narrowly based claimant count.

Using the LFS yardstick, unemployment stood at 7.9% in the three months to July, while a 20,300 jump to 1.58m in August left the claimant count jobless rate at 4.9%. Unemployment among the under-25s rose by 77,000 in the three months to July, taking the total of unemployed 16-24 year olds to 972,000.

A spokeswoman from The Prince's Trust youth charity said: "It is deeply concerning that youth unemployment has risen sharply, with young people hit hardest and those out of work for more than a year increasing by nearly a fifth. To tackle this downward spiral of youth unemployment, government, businesses and charities need to work together on schemes that work. More than three in four young people supported by The Prince's Trust last year moved into work, education or training."

Scotland was the one region of the UK to see a fall in unemployment between May and July. Alex Salmond, the first minister, said the decline was due to extra spending on infrastructure projects and support for small and medium sized companies.

Analysts said the weakness of the labour market was highlighted by a fall in vacancies, a 40% jump in redundancies and a record number of people working part-time but in search of full-time jobs.

Scott Corfe, senior economist at the Centre for Economic and Business Research, said: "The UK government will now be under immense pressure to deal with unemployment, especially given President Obama's announcement of a $450bn (£280bn) job creation package in the US last week. The focus of a UK jobs creation package would almost certainly be on private sector deregulation and measures aimed at reducing the risk associated with hiring new workers – rather than a slowdown in the pace of deficit reduction – given the political costs of moving away from plan A."

Graeme Leach, chief economist at the IoD, said it was time for the Bank of England to announce a second round of quantitative easing (QE), with the Bank of England buying bonds in order to create money. He said: "The storm clouds are gathering, with falling employment and rising unemployment at a time when it is difficult to see how this might reverse. Today's figures reinforce our belief that we need to launch QE2 as soon as possible."

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "These are terrible figures. They are further evidence that the recovery has been choked off by a self-defeating rush to austerity. Government policies are hurting, but they aren't working."

Nigel Meager, Director of the Institute for Employment Studies, said: ""It's hard to avoid the conclusion that policy-makers now need to stop sitting on their hands and start looking for ways to get spending power into the economy quickly."

UK Lags Behind In Child-Parent Wellbeing, Says Unicef

Children and parents in two contrasting European countries, Sweden and Spain, have significantly higher levels of wellbeing than those in a third, the United Kingdom, according to a survey and research by Unicef, the United Nations Children’s Fund.


















The survey examined attitudes towards materialism and inequality and found that parents and children had markedly different attitudes towards material possessions.

It was carried out among some 250 children, ranging in age from eight to 13, from all social backgrounds in the three countries. The findings were further discussed in three steering groups, one each in England, Spain and Sweden, of 14-year-olds. Twenty four families in the three countries were also observed and filmed.

“The message from them all was simple, clear and unanimous,” according to the Unicef report, “their wellbeing centres on time with a happy, stable family, having good friends and plenty of things to do, especially outdoors.”

Given the links, in terms of history, cultural and social policy thinking, between Ireland and the UK, the survey is likely to be of interest in Ireland, in particular to social workers, childcare specialists and policy analysts.

“Family life in the three countries was strikingly different,” says the report. It identified pressure on parental time in the UK, linked to long hours and both parents working outside the home, as having an impact on children, with parents trying to “make up” by buying things for their children.

“In the UK homes, we found parents struggling to give children the time they clearly want to spend with them whilst in Spain and Sweden family time appeared to be woven into the fabric of everyday life. We also noticed that the roles played by mothers, fathers and children within the family and the rules which governed family life were much more clearly defined in Spain and Sweden than in the UK.

“Moreover by the time many British children had reached secondary school, their participation in active and creative pursuits – pursuits that children said made them happy – had in fact dwindled, whilst this occurred less in other countries . . .

“Behind the statistics, we found British families struggling, pushed to find the time their children want, something exacerbated by the uncertainty about the rules and roles operating within the family household. And we found less participation in outdoor and creative activities amongst older and more deprived children.”

On materialism, the survey found that British children and parents both had problems.

For the majority of eight- to 13-year-olds in all three countries, “new toys, fashion items and gadgets were not central to their wellbeing”.

“Rather than wanting to acquire things for their own sake, material objects and consumer goods tended to fulfil a range of purposes in children’s lives: utilitarian, symbolic and social,” says the report.

“However, whilst most children agreed that family time is more important than consumer goods, we observed within UK homes a compulsion on the part of some parents to continually buy new things both for themselves and their children . . .

“We also noticed that UK parents were often buying their children status brands believing that they were protecting them from the kind of bullying they experienced in their own childhood.

“This compulsive acquisition and protective, symbolic brand purchase was largely absent in Spain and Sweden where parents were clearly under much less pressure to consume and displayed greater resilience.”

On inequality, in the UK this tended to be defined in terms of money and material possessions.

“Whilst the links between brands and inequality created tensions and anxieties for children in all three countries to some extent, these feelings were only shared by UK parents. Swedish and Spanish parents seemed not to belong to a “consumer generation” in the same way.

“Deprivation for Swedish parents was understood as living in an area where personal safety was threatened, whilst for Spanish mothers not being able to spend time with your children was seen to confer disadvantage relative to others.

“In the UK, inequality was also seen in access to outdoor, sporting and creative activities, with poorer children spending more sedentary time in front of screens whilst the more affluent had access to a wide range of sports and other pursuits.”

Children’s Well-being in the UK, Sweden and Spain: the Role of Inequality and Materialism (Unicef; June 2011) is a qualitative study and may be read online in full at unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/

Childcare Costs Mean A Choice Of Debt Or Unemployment For Many Parents

Rather than facilitating work, the huge cost of childcare in the UK is a daunting obstacle – and government cuts worsen the bind.












David Cameron visits a nursery in London. His government's reduction of tax credits has made childcare even more costly for working parents.

I could understand why my bank manager was looking at me like that. It did sound a bit stupid. "You're about to start a job, and that means you need to extend your overdraft?" he said, dubiously. After years of scratching around as a student, I was finally about to draw a wage – but first, I needed to get myself just a bit deeper in debt.

I have two children, so before I could set foot in my office, I needed somewhere to put them, and childcare has to be paid for in advance. That's no minor outlay here in the UK, where we have the highest childcare costs relative to household income of anywhere in the world. A survey by the Daycare Trust and Save the Children explains how much of a barrier and a burden this can be, particularly to families on low incomes. Of the parents questioned, a quarter said that the cost of childcare had caused them to get into debt, but it's the poorest families (those with a household income of less than £12,000 a year) who experience the most crippling effects.

While the better off may have to compromise on swimming lessons or music tuition to cope with higher-than-inflation rises in nursery fees, the more impoverished are often forced to cut back on essentials such as food or heating to make up the difference. And sometimes, ends simply can't be met: a quarter of those in severe poverty said that they had given up work because of childcare costs. A third of them had passed on a job offer for the same reason, and a quarter reported that the expense of childcare had prevented them from taking up education or training.

Rather than facilitating work, childcare becomes a daunting obstacle, keeping parents out of the workplace – and the poorer a family is, the more likely it is to remain in poverty for the lack of money to cover nursery fees. Single-parent families without savings or access to credit are effectively shut out of work.

The government likes to talk about getting people off welfare and into the workplace. "Over the last decade, thousands of people were simply abandoned to a lifetime on benefits, and a staggering 1.84 million children are living in homes where no one works," said employment minister Chris Grayling last week. Rightwing analyses talk about the "lack of work ethic … helping to fuel levels of unemployment".

But it's practical, financial limitations more than nebulous psychological causes that are often keeping parents from becoming employees, and the government's actions so far seem likely to worsen the childcare bind. Working tax credit was sliced in this year's budget, so that it now covers only 70% rather than 80% of childcare costs – a huge difference in the finances of those who need help the most. As the cuts agenda combines with a sneering rhetoric of disdain for the unemployed, this just seems like one more way of keeping the poorest poor, from cradle to grave.

David Cameron's Holiday Boost

Pity the poor Cameron family. The received wisdom suggests that August should be a quiet month in British politics. Not so for David Cameron this year. Twice in the space of a few weeks, the prime minister was summoned away from wife and children to take charge back in Downing Street.













First, the worst rioting in decades brought him home from Tuscany; then the assault on Tripoli meant quitting the beaches of England's southwest. That's tough on a leader badly in need of a break after a pasting from the press over his suspiciously close ties to the Murdoch media empire revealed by the phone-hacking scandal.

But the broken holiday has useful consolations. Cameron's approval ratings now stand at around 40 percent; much the same as before the summer's traumas. Better still, the Conservatives are slowly regaining some of the ground lost to Labour in recent months. The latest YouGov polls suggest that the party is trailing by just five points at 37 percent.

Some explanations are easy enough. The riots allowed Cameron to show off the kind of calm and competence that the public expects of a leader at a moment of crisis. And the approach of total victory in Libya has converted many of the skeptics, with support for Britain's involvement in the campaign–now 43 percent–rising with every advance.

No less important, the summer's troubles have provided useful political distraction from other pressing national woes. The latest growth figures show a British economy that's more or less flat-lining. Unemployment and inflation are both rising while manufacturing output–seen as crucial to recovery–fell sharply last month.

That's bad for the Conservatives, with the polls indicating that they are still seen as the party of the rich out of sympathy with the poor or the squeezed middle classes. Voters accept the need for austerity measures if Britain is to escape the fate of other European nations, but the mood is grim. “You need another story if you want to keep them happy,” says Neil O'Brien of the Conservative think tank Policy Exchange.

The riots provide just such a story. Cameron, long accused of lacking a distinctive cause, now has a clear purpose and goal: repairing what he has called “Broken Britain.”

And he can't be accused of any sudden conversion. For Cameron, the issue of how to tackle the problems of Britain's poor and alienated youth is familiar ground. His concern for “Broken Britain” was a recurring theme in his attempts to give the Conservative Party a more caring image in the run-up to last year's elections.

Politically, it's an issue that demands all Cameron's PR deftness. On the one hand, he knows that the public takes a tougher line than both main parties when it comes to questions of law and order. He knows too that plenty of right-wing Tory MPs–their numbers strengthened at the election–are still suspicious of their leader's attempts to edge the party onto the center ground of politics.

On the other, he can't disown the talk of compassionate conservatism that he's deployed in the past, and Labour yearns for a slip-up that will allow him to be portrayed as an old-style Conservative more interested in punishment than seeking to understand the causes behind the riots.

Language is crucial. Whatever their reaction to the riots, the public doesn't like the harsh rhetoric of retribution. “Much of it is tonal,” says Neil O'Brien. “If you get it wrong, it sounds like you're off the golf course.”

So far, Cameron has managed to sidestep the pitfalls, moderating his language to match the voters' cooling temper. The initial talk of the looters' “sheer criminality” and his apparent endorsement of harsh sentences have given way to a more nuanced stance. In a BBC interview Friday, he was advocating “tough love” as well as tough justice.

Not that Cameron can risk complacency. Next month he must address his party's annual conference in Manchester, always a testing experience for a Conservative leader, and he'll need policies to match his words. One recent survey showed a clear majority believed that neither party was capable of mending “Broken Britain.”

And if Cameron's ratings have yet to slump, nor have they markedly improved since he took power. Voters may be awaiting results before they come to a firm conclusion on his premiership, says Rick Nye of pollsters Populus. “You have seen the hacking, the riots, and Libya, but they are not really game-changers when it comes to their fundamental assessment.”

Even if the streets of London and Tripoli stay calm, for Cameron the coming months will be no holiday.

UK Elderly Fourth Poorest In EU As Third Of British Over-65s Live In Poverty

Campaigners have called for urgent action to stamp out pensioner poverty after a report found nearly a third of British over-65s are living on below average incomes.

The European Commission statistics, published by Eurostat, place the UK's elderly among the worst in Europe, with 30 per cent living on incomes far below the national average.

This was the fourth highest level in Europe, better than only Cyprus, Latvia and Estonia, the figures showed.













European Commission figures revealed 30 per cent of Britain over-65s are living in poverty, with UK elderly the fourth poorest in the EU.

Age Concern and Help the Aged called for ministers to act through measures such as reforming the benefits and pension system.

The figures come ahead of the Work and Pension Committee's review of government efforts to tackle pensioner poverty, which is published on Thursday.

The EU research, which compared relative poverty in the 27 member states, showed nearly one in three UK over-65s were at risk of poverty in 2007, the same proportion as in Lithuania (30 per cent).

It revealed that in most leading European economies, pensioner poverty levels were either below or slightly above the EU average of 19 per cent.

British pensioners were worse off than Romania, where 19 per cent fell below the poverty threshold, Poland (8 per cent) and France (13 per cent).

Pensioners in the Czech Republic were least likely to be living in poverty, with 5 per cent below the threshold of an income of 60 per cent of the national median, according to the figures.

Michelle Mitchell, charity director for Age Concern and Help the Aged, said: 'What this report clearly shows is that, even before the recession sets in, many older people weren't keeping up with the pace at which the general wealth of the nation has increased over the past years.

'This means they risk being increasingly excluded from community life.

'In a country where the richest have incomes five times higher than the poorest, older people are disproportionately bearing the burden of this inequality.

'To lift millions of pensioners out of poverty and prevent this situation from getting worse in the future, this government and the next must find a more effective system to ensure benefits reach those who need them and mee the existing commitment to reform the pension system by 2012.'

Recent research by the charity showed one in five people aged 60 and over are skipping meals to save money on food, while two-fifths are struggling to afford essential items.

Number Of Pensioners In Poverty Rises For First Time In Decade

The number of pensioners living in poverty has risen for the first time in a decade, new figures show.











Official statistics show that 200,000 more elderly people were classed as poor in 2006-7 than the previous year, leaving almost one in three in poverty.

It comes amid record food, fuel and council bills, which are rising at a faster rate than pensions and leaving increasing numbers struggling to cope.

The figures also showed that the number of poor children has risen for the second year running by 100,000, with a third now living below the poverty line.

Campaigners said it was a "moral disgrace" that so many people are unable to make ends meet in one of the world's richest countries, and called on the Government to make sure the poorest pensioners receive the benefits they deserve.

Gordon Lishman, director-general of Age Concern, said: "It is a national disgrace that pensioner poverty levels have begun to rise.

"Older people have been hit particularly hard as living costs have gone through the roof - half of those affected by fuel poverty alone are pensioners."

Mervyn Kohler, special adviser for Help the Aged, added: "When older people live on a fixed income it is virtually impossible for them to pull themselves out of poverty.

"Pensioners often have to cut back on essential household items just to survive. This is a disgrace."

A household is deemed to be below the poverty line if its income is less than 60 per cent of the national median. For the latest figures, this means that a couple with no children who earn less than £226 a week are classed as poor.

When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 2.9 million poor pensioners after rent and mortgage costs are accounted for.

This figure which had been reduced to 1.8 million last year but which now stands at 2.1 million.

When looked at before housing costs are taken into account, the number of poor pensioners is the same now (2.5 million) as it was when Labour came to power and is higher than it was in the mid-1990s.

There were 4.2 million children classed as poor in 1997. By 2005, after a decade of pledges and new benefits systems intended to cut poverty, the number of poor children had been cut to 3.6 million.

But last year the figure rose by 100,000, and this year it has risen again. It is now at the same level as it was five years ago.

In 1999 Labour pledged to halve poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020.

Ministers admitted the numbers published by the Department for Work and Pensions were "disappointing" but insisted they would drop next year once increases in benefits announced in last year's Budget take effect.

Stephen Timms, the Employment and Welfare Reform Minister, said: "We are committed to tackling poverty and providing opportunity for all and these figures confer with the very substantial progress over the last decade to large numbers of pensioners and children lifted out of poverty in relative and absolute terms.

"But we have heard that over the last year or two we have on some levels slipped back."

It was also claimed that the number of poor pensioners may have increased because the impact of a one-off £200 payment to help with council tax bills made in 2005 had now ended.

The Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Chris Grayling, said: "These figures are proof, if ever proof was needed, that Gordon Brown and his Government have quite simply run out of steam and run out of ideas."

Cutting Benefits Of Single Parents Will Increase Number Of Kids In Poverty

Slashing benefits of single parents who don't look for work will increase child poverty and family hardship, a report has warned.

Gingerbread, the charity that represents lone parents, wants ministers to abandon the "big stick" of benefit sanctions proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill.















Interviewing 200 single parents it found most were keen to work but felt hampered by lack of support from Government and employers.

Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir said: "Single parents are branded bad mothers if they are not there for their children and derided as benefits scroungers if they stay home - they feel caught in a trap."

The Government says getting single parents to work is the best route out of poverty.

But Gingerbread claims welfare reforms will make it tougher for single parents to juggle work with raising a family.

There are 1.9 million single parents in the UK who care for about three million children. Until last year, those with children aged 16 or younger could claim Income Support and weren't forced to seek work.

They had to attend "Work Focused Interviews" at the Jobcentre twice a year to discuss returning to work.

Since then, the Government has introduced a major change, gradually moving single parents with children aged seven and over from Income Support on to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).

To claim JSA they must attend Jobcentre Plus every two weeks and show they are actively looking for work. Claimants who fail to meet these conditions or who turn down a job without "good cause" can have their benefits cut by up to 40%.

The Bill aims to make parents of children as young as three take part in "work-related activity".

Many single parents are already being squeezed by the recession.

Calls to Gingerbread's helpline suggest more lone parents are seeing maintenance payments slashed as ex-partners lose their jobs.

Gingerbread's research also found many parents were keen to work but said it often didn't pay. "Childcare, travel and school meal costs can wipe out the benefits of many lowpaid, part-time jobs and leave parents out of pocket," says Weir.

Gingerbread wants employers to be more flexible to help single parents juggle work and family responsibilities and says the state could lead by example by offering more flexitime, parttime work and job sharing.

It believes single parents should have childcare costs covered through working tax credits and get their youngsters school meals free.

The DWP stressed the Government was commited to ensuring work pays for lone parents. Work & Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced a trial that from next year will mean they can earn £50 a week without losing benefits. And the bill has been amended so victims of domestic violence will not have to look for work for three months.

"We need to help families out of poverty by helping parents work, and we will always do so in a way that also supports family life," said Cooper. Here we speak to three single mums facing the challenges...

For expert advice call Gingerbread's free helpline on 0800 018 5026.

The full-time mum

Mother-of-two Jaqueline Carroll says she feels "stuck in a rut" on benefits.

"I want to work," the 33-year-old from Liverpool says. "I think it's terrible that the Government is threatening to take money off single parents instead of help them.

"Some single parents advisers are good - but some ask why you don't apply for jobs starting from 8.30am. When you say you can't because you have to drop your child off at school, they go 'oh you're just being negative'."

Jacqueline was shocked when she went for a supermarket job. "The first thing they said was 'if any of you want cushy hours, forget it. The good hours are for people already here'."

The part-time worker

Wendi New, 40, had to give up her job teaching young offenders in prison when her marriage broke up 12 months ago.

She says staff at her local Jobcentre tried to push her to work at a supermarket, despite her qualifications. Now she has a job teaching children with behavioural problems closer to her home in Lowestoft, Suffolk. She works 18 hours a week and brings home about £900 a month.

"I'd have to work 50 hours a week in a supermarket to earn that. I couldn't do it and look after Hollie. Even now if Hollie's ill I have to take unpaid leave and then I'm worse off than I'd be on benefits."

The full-time worker

Charity worker Sarah Davidge from Bristol wants to work to provide a "positive role model" for her daughters Meg and Beth.

"You have two jobs - work and parenting. But you don't feel as if you do either to the best of your ability. I can't stay late at work and I don't feel able to devote as much time as I'd like going through homework with them."

Sarah admits she is luckier than many lone parents - earning about £25,000 for a 35-hour week, and her employer is flexible about hours.

"But a lot of companies aren't so flexible. The Government should encourage choice, not try to force people to take the first job going."

The Benefit Trap: Working Families Feel The Squeeze

Iain Duncan Smith's tax and benefits reforms are hitting the most vulnerable in society, say leading think tanks, and threaten to undermine any notion that work pays.









Low income families are becoming worse off and the prospect of work less attractive as government reforms of tax and benefits systems aimed at encouraging people back to work take effect.

The warning comes in the wake of a series of reports from respected think tanks that have analysed the impact of the reforms being led by work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Their findings reveal that an urgent rethink is needed, highlighting problems in the interaction of income tax and tax credits with other benefits.

‘Cuts to childcare tax credits could leave some parents losing 94p for every extra pound they earn,’ according to a report from the Resolution Foundation. It cites the example of a single mother on the minimum wage who would be just £3 a week better off if she decided to work four days a week rather than three.

Lone parents, 92% of whom are women, are worst hit by cuts, losing 8.5% of their annual income by 2015, according to The Fawcett Society. Its analysis was based on research undertaken by the highly regarded Institute for Fiscal Studies using the government's own models.

‘The government talks a lot about promoting responsibility and backing aspiration, but on the ground these cuts are actually stopping single parents from getting on,’ says Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread that represents lone parents.

‘It is unacceptable that single parents are bearing the brunt of cuts and this research proves again that the government must do more to support single parents, including further investment in childcare, training and employment support.’
Childcare costs

In the past, parents have been able to claim back up to 80% of childcare costs up to £300 a week, depending on income. For a family with two children or more this works out at a maximum of £240 a week. But since April the proportion these costs a parent can claim back has been reduced to 70 per cent and capped at £210 a week – a loss of £30 a week.

The Resolution Report calculates that almost 500,000 working families have lost an average of £426 a year in childcare benefit since April of this year, rising to an average of £600 a year in London, with some as much as £1,300 a year worse off.

According to the Daycare Trust’s 2011 annual survey of child care costs, the average yearly expenditure for 25 hours nursery care per week for a child under two is £5,028 in England, £5,178 in Scotland and £4,723 in Wales. This works out at around £96 a week on average.

But for parents working from 8.30am to 5.30pm childcare costs are nearly double at £172 a week, with some parents paying as much as £11 an hour for child care.