Republican News · Thursday 28 November 2002

Failing those most in need

BY ÁINE NÍ BHRIAIN

Women are neglected and marginalised - their needs are not reflected in the services that are provided, nor are their kids. No car, no money, no bus and three kids, how do you get to places to find support? (Shankill Women's Centre, 2001)

Recently, a letter appeared in a Belfast paper from a woman who was watching her daughter struggle to raise six children on her own. She remarked that having lived through hard times herself, she had thought nothing could compare to the poverty and despair of those days. "I was wrong," she added.

She went on to tell of her daughter's constant battle to purchase basic and essential items for her family, provide heat for her home, food for her children and the neverending cycle of benefits, poverty and debt.

"Don't these children deserve the same opportunities as other children?" she asked, "Does anyone care? Do the powers-that-be believe that these children don't have the same needs as others?"

Sadly, not much has changed since the days when our parents had to go "cap in hand to the assistance". The figures on poverty in the north, and in particular child poverty, are as appalling as ever. The Six Counties has more children living in poverty than any region in Britain.

Three out of ten households in the North are living below the poverty line - on less than £150 a week. Of the 500,000 children under 18, as many as 37% are affected by poverty and 32% live in households whose only income is derived from benefits.

So the "powers-that-be" certainly have a lot of work to do if they hope to change what is a tragic and unacceptable standard.

Unemployment is only one leg on the table of deprivation. Half of all children living below the poverty line come from families that have one adult in employment. So when we speak of child poverty we are talking about far more than money and income. We are also talking about social exclusion: the lack of educational opportunities for those children, access to adequate health care, the high cost of fuel, food and clothing, and the availibility of basic transportation.

It is in the best interest of government to make a serious and determined effort to resolve these problems, yet the British state continues to show a lack of concern and political will with respect to the social and economic needs of the people of the north and their children. Same old, same old, some might say.

A report compiled this October by the Institute of Governance, Public Policy and Social Research at Queen's University, found evidence that, historically, poverty levels have been higher in the Six Counties than in British regions. The report cited the North's higher rate of unemployment and lower levels of economic activity.

Not surprising, considering the entire structure of the Northern state was founded on the colonial cornerstones of inequity, exclusion and marginalisation.

If we are working, the majority of us are labouring at jobs on the lowest end of the pay scale. Our rate of wage is 22% lower than any region in Britain but our electricity prices are 22% higher. 28% of all households in the north (170,000 homes) have difficulty paying for fuel to keep warm. Women still earn less than men and we suffer the highest expenditure on food, power and clothing, again compared to regions in Britain.

One in five households rely on social security benefits - the highest rate of benefit reliance compared to British regions - and 32% of our children live in households whose only income derives from benefits. There are currently 23,000 people on housing waiting lists - more than half of whom are in urgent need.

Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to have low income and poor health as adults, be born smaller and suffer greater mortality rates. But according to work done by groups such as Save the Children and the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network (NIAPN), they are also less likely to aspire to a professional occupation, more likely to be jobless, have a higher risk of early motherhood, and more likely to be lone parents - all of which leads to greater demands on a social security system that is already barely functioning.

"Poverty makes it more difficult for children to learn, but a child's chances living in poverty as an adult are increased without educational qualifications. Educational disadvantage both generates and sustains poverty and social exclusion - a vicious cycle. Families living in poverty say they have insufficient money to buy books, or clothing, or to contribute to the list of activities or items required by "voluntary contributions" (NIAPN).

Children cannot grow properly or remain healthy without substantial, nutritious food but the cost of healthy food, such as fresh vegetables and fruit, is often too high for families in need, especially lone parent families and families where someone (adult or child) has some disability or long term illness, as they are more likely to be poor.

A lack of nutrition also impedes a child's ability to learn and attend classes. Kids who are deprived of good food do not learn at the same rate as those who have a balanced diet and children who are in ill health are more likely to miss school, fall behind and underachieve. This also makes them more likely to be truant. They are occasionally encouraged to drop out of school - (informal exclusion) - and the costs of hiring a private tutor to help them is also well beyond their family's financial reach. Without an education, their chances of finding good employment are slim and so the cycle of povery and despair continues.

There's more pressure on young members of poor families to work and support each other. Poor kids that go to overcrowded schools don't have the same opportunities as those that go to the 'college'. The poor have no voice, no one listens, DHSS don't want to know, no money, no clout, money talks. (Armagh Unemployed Group, 2001)

In the Six Counties, as many as one in three parents go without food regularly in order to enable their children to eat. This in turn often leads to the parent suffering ill health as well, which affects the entire family's status. The parent cannot find work if they are sick and they have no affordable health care in order to get well.

Similarly, a lack of clean water and heat is detrimental to good health.

The suggestion that there might soon be a rate charge on water through Public Private Partnerships is a disaster waiting to happen. It will lead to the spread of illness, disease and ultimately death. Families living in poverty cannot afford to pay for water alongside the already unrealistic costs of food, clothing, fuel and schooling. They often have to choose one over the other as it is, and the suggestion that families in need will be able to pay a lesser rate is no consolation. It begs the question, just what will the government and/or private sector's definition of "disadvantaged" be? How will they measure the ability of a family to pay? By income alone, or by the cost of their daily survival? Is this not a case of the private sector profiting at the expense of private people?

In researching this story I went to the Targeting Social Need (TSN) seminar on Social Inclusion sponsored by the Institute of Governance, Public Policy and Social Research at Queens. The report was produced for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister before the recent suspension of the Assembly, but no one from either office felt the need to attend. Alongside me were scholars, statisticians, economists, individuals with particular fields of expertise, representatives from several registered charities and other members of the voluntary, public and private sectors.

I learned that although they had a fondness for abbreviations, graphs and complex terminology, the authors and researchers who compiled and presented the TSN report were not entirely clear as to exactly what they were attempting to do.

Although the paper itself stated boldly that "this is the key policy in the Programme for Government to fight poverty and exclusion", by the end of its foreword it had died to almost a plea that "the present briefing paper will, hopefully, assist the process of discussion and debate on what is a fundamental issue".

By the end of the afternoon my head hurt. Were they suggesting ways to measure poverty, composing a definition of poverty, practical solutions, or a working strategy to deal with the issue? Perhaps they were attempting all of the above.

I wasn't the only one who felt awash in a sea of terminology and process. Many people who have been battling poverty on behalf of themselves and others for years expressed confusion over exactly why they were there.

While the suits wrestled with definitions, targets and standards of social exclusion, those who are on the ground dealing with poverty were feeling some exclusion of their own.

ti-poverty and community groups that have existed for years had not even been consulted but newly formed groups were - leaving a gap in relavent practical experience.

There was no opportunity for anyone to ask questions or address the assembled participants. There was no chance to express any misgivings or concerns - with the exception of raising the subject within the small discussion groups we were asked to adjourn to, and many expressed the feeling that there was a disturbing gap between number crunching and the human dimension.

I left with the distinct sense that the whole event was an expanded intellectual exercise to "flesh out" an initiative that already lacked a defined and practical purpose.

While I applaud the effort to understand the causes of poverty, provide some form of structure to define and measure it, and find constructive ways to combat and eliminate it, I am alarmed that there seems to be no real voice for the people most affected by the decisions being taken over their own lives and little by way of practical action.

There are some common sense ways to immediately improve the standard of living and reduce the severity of poverty for children and their families. But according to Frances Dowd of the North's Anti-Poverty Network (NIAPN), the first thing government must do is agree on a definition of just what poverty is.

"We need an accepted definition of poverty, starting from the perspective of human rights," says Dowd, "and the right to live a life that would be considered reasonable for the norms of society. It is about far more than just economics; it is about how people are treated, the services provided them, the access they have to those services, and about being prevented from fully participating within society... I would like to see poverty rights included in a bill of rights."

Dowd's experience of the system, like others in the public sector, is one of frustration. Limited resources and underfunding make their work difficult.

"The system in place is too slow and does not speed action," she says. "We provide information on how to improve things and present it to people like Assembly members, but they tell us they have no control over things like the national budget, that it is determined by Westminister, not local or regional government. So when we recommend that they make immediate changes, such as raising the minimum wage or raising benefit levels, they tell us they are unable to do so. Why are they not trying to change the taxation laws? I would like to see a critical but constructive relationship with the political sector but we keep hitting the wall of budget control."

Is poverty a natural symptom of society, an unavoidable side effect of a democratic process?

"I don't thing so," says Dowd, "because it is economic policy that creates poverty."

---

Practical proposals for change

Frances Dowd's organisation, the Six-County Anti-Poverty Network (NIAPN), has more than 280 members. It is made up of small groups and individuals with particular knowledge. They work together to provide practical recommendations for change and a voice for those who feel silenced by the system that excludes them. Their members include ex-prisoner groups, the Ardoyne Community Centre, the West Belfast Economic Forum, the Belfast Travellers Education and Development Group, the Shankill Women's Centre, the trade union UNISON, the Women's Support Network and the East Belfast Community Development Association, to name just a few.

They get some of their funding from OXFAM, Community fund, European sources, and a minimal amount from the British, Irish and Six-County administrations, but it is not enough. They are a registered charity, and have recently produced a "poverty pack" containing information factsheets, essays and recommendations from their members. It is a very well constructed and informative piece of work.

Their suggestions are simple:

• Raise the minimum wage and benefit levels, abolish benefit loans and reintroduce grants for necessities and education, to be awarded in practical lump sum payments.
• School meals should be healthy and balanced and provided (along with milk) free to every child, not just those who take them up. Every child should be provided free school uniforms and free transportation to and from school.
• Families on income support, low-wage employees, students and widows should be provided more accessible subsidised health care, dental and eye care.
• "New Deal" Work schemes that encourage young people to accept low pay, short term work should be dropped - along with the 11 plus, and there must be better access to higher education for all. We must abolish the concept that "education is for those who can afford it" and get rid of loans for further education. We must strive to provide it for any child who seeks it.
• We should strive to provide quality, free, childcare and plenty of it. Such an initiative could also generate revenue return for the local community.
• Allow pay for family members to care for their kids or disabled relatives, provide more provisions for kids - give them something worthwhile and positive to do - in order to combat interface violence, boredom, anti-social behaviour and hopelessness.
• Cap private rent rates.
• Fund more access to proper mental health services for children and young adults and educate the public and youth about drug abuse, birth control, smoking, alcoholism and mental illnesses such as depression.

For the quality of life to improve in the north, we must urge the move away from market dominated politics to a more social focus, something republicans have long sought to do. Such changes would not only improve the quality of life for our children, disabled people and pensioners, they would also shift everyone's daily lives away from the inequities and divisions of the past, building a fairer and more just society and promoting political stability.