Confronting the cost of living on the frontline of poverty
By Sam Joshi 2022
The imposition of sanctions on Russia, and subsequent escalation in price of energy bills, may be the most immediate explanation for the cost of living crisis in the UK. But for us, conflict in Ukraine is just the latest battle in a much longer war between poverty and prosperity. In each fight, defeat over the aggressor has always depended on the defensive willpower, focus and tenacity of the aggressed. Our collective prosperity, like the freedom of Ukraine, is under attack. As demonstrated by the latest retreat from Kharkiv, Russian aggression is up against the formidable resistance of a central, unified impassioned Ukrainian population. In the UK however, poverty risks advancing unimpeded against the incohesive plans of an incoherent government.
The current fuel cap, set at just below £2000, restricts the price we pay for gas and electricity. Yet on 26th August, Ofgem revealed its plans to raise the cap to above £3500. With the deduction of heating bills, removing this lifeline would send 8 million households into fuel poverty, reducing disposable income to below the official poverty line. The government has since announced its intention to cap the uplift to £2500 per household, in a move to evade the prospect of national catastrophe. It has failed however, to provide an affordable plan to finance its scheme. The scale of suffering at stake demands that we examine this strategy, highlight its deficiencies, expose the costs of inaction, and explore an alternative approach.
Since Ofgem announced its energy plans, in its fixation over leadership turnover, internal conflict and indecision over economic plans, instability has gripped the government. During her short tenure as prime minister, Truss unveiled intentions to implement a stimulus package worth at least £180 billion, the bulk of which was ringfenced to compensate energy giants for the revenues otherwise amassed from extortionate retail bills. In the immediate future, the scheme promised to save consumers from the worst extremities of energy inflation. In its resolute defence of private profits however, the government has so far refused to implement a windfall tax, a key means through which to raise revenue without risking a heavy electoral backlash.
Before giving Truss the chance to wreck irreversible damage, investors cast a resounding vote of no confidence in the government, sending her strategy, and leadership, into retreat. The Bank of England was nonetheless forced into an emergency wave of quantitative easing, printing billions in bonds to finance demands for borrowing. Without the immediate execution of an affordable alternative, the deficit continues to grow. Under the new Sunak regime, the government must choose now whether to pass this burden on to us, or the energy giants. Some hope remains given that Sunak presided over the “Energy Profit Levy” as Chancellor, a £5 billion windfall tax on energy producers that helped finance government support for households grappling with a cost of living crisis.
Madeline Daley is among the leading members of FareShare Greater Manchester. And for the poorest, her insight helps to illuminate the practical implications of the prevailing political paralysis. Among the most urgent is food insecurity, which in the five months following April, has seen 45% of adults skip meals, forcing one twentieth into consistent hunger. Whereas incomes have stagnated, the price of over half of all major supermarket value range products have increased by 15%.
It is therefore striking to note that when 10% of the British population will spend the next six months with a choice between heating and eating, no less than one billion tonnes of British food will go to waste. WRAP, a climate action NGO, estimates that of this waste, 270,000 tonnes could otherwise be redistributed to people in need. For an average family, 1 full meal consists of around 420 grams of edible food. This amounts to 1200 million wasted meals every year. The numbers are astronomical – in the next six month this could save 7 million people from spending a single day in hunger.
Before the blame can be levied on supermarkets however, we must remember that executives are themselves constrained by the escalating costs of supply. On 13 August, the Independent reported that on the back of the nation’s driest July since 1935, drought will force farmers to raise “the prices of beef, lamb, wheat and other crops” in anticipation of severely restricted harvests for the year ahead. The National Farmers’ Union argue that in response to the sharply rising cost of fertiliser, feed, wheat and barley, farmers’ financial security can only be guaranteed if supermarkets pay more for their produce. As a necessary result, “prices must go up”.
Even before the energy crisis, Madeline explains how the price of accommodation had established itself as the biggest reason for food insecurity.
“In Greater Manchester, the monthly rent for a two bed flat is £1822”, which for those on benefits “means no areas are classed as affordable”. Because an annual “£21,824 just to pay for rent” means working “61 weeks per year…even if you’re working full time with overtime that’s not enough to survive”. Putting the numbers in perspective, Madeline explains how the 25% of GM residents earning “below the living wage” would be enough to “fill Stamford Bridge five times over”.
For the millions in this country with “childcare, driving and transport restrictions” however, “people can’t afford to work full time”. Added to the humiliating “stigma attached to those on benefits”, this creates a desperate situation in which “it’s so shameful for so many to accept the help”. From her experience, many of Greater Manchester’s 75,000 Universal Credit claimants “were so distrustful of the process of accepting a food parcel that when the help came, they chose not to accept it”.
As a country, we produce more than we can eat, yet charge more than we can pay. Readily edible, healthy food that could be channelled into meals on the plates of the poorest is instead incinerated, converted into biofuel, or returned to feed for the livestock, themselves condemned to stack supermarket shelves at unaffordable prices. The future of food is contingent on sustaining affordable energy and housing markets, a resolution to the conflict in the Ukraine, and fighting climate change. Without an immediate solution for any however, our urgent priority becomes food distribution, the waste from which is as avoidable as it is unjust.
Although Madeline does not “think FareShare should need to exist”, hers is among the only organisations fighting to save families from starving this Winter. But finance for their work depends upon supplier donations. Since April, support from supermarkets has run increasingly dry, at the same time as beneficiary demand has become ever more intense. Since a monthly peak of 206,000 kilos at the end of the pandemic, the food FareShare can move has been forced to below 150,000 kilos. The difference, in real terms, runs the risk of starvation for those dependent on the 270 charities they serve. Because 70% of this is perishable, such as fruit, vegetables and dairy, the most pressing challenge is making the requisite movements while the food is still fresh and edible.
Harvard Business Review outlines how existing technologies can cut delivery times between inventories and supermarket shelves. Paying close attention to consumer habits creates clearer expectations about necessary produce. Close communication between supermarkets and farmers could therefore help to eliminate excess produce, and its associated waste.
In the immediate future therefore, farmers, transport networks and retailers must work together in a drive to deliver their supply before it expires. Such an ambitious venture would require coordination, communication and commitment. But if the collective focus of an industry can shift to face the immediate crisis of poverty, families may need not starve this Winter.
Improving the Governance of the UK Asylum System: A look at the Commission on the Integration of Refugees March 2024 report
By Sheu Hirst 2024
SUMMARY
The Commission on the Integration of Refugees published their findings from their call for evidence on the effect of the UK asylum system on the integration of refugees and asylum seekers. This analysis focuses on the report’s investigation into how to improve the governance of the UK asylum system. Although different groups of respondents prioritised different areas of governance, it is evident that there is a consensus that regards these as intertwined; such that addressing one area of governance requires and impacts the possibilities of addressing another. This analysis seeks to examine the responses and evaluate the solutions offered in the report.
BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT
The Commission on the Integration of Refugees was funded by the Woolf Institute, and was the product of their call for evidence on the effect of the UK asylum system on the integration for refugees and asylum seekers. Between November 2022 and April 2023 the Commission received evidence from more than 1,250 organisations and individuals regarding what would be required to improve the integration experiences of refugees and asylum seekers and to identify practical solutions with which to fix the broken system. The responses came from a diverse pool of individuals and organisations including refugees and asylum seekers; policymakers and politicians; local government and civil servants; third sector workers; academics; and faith and community leaders. Dr Ed Kessler and Dr Christopher Cooper-Davies designed and disseminated the Call for Evidence, and Prof Jenny Phillimore and Dr Emanuelle Degli Esposti oversaw the analysis and writing process.
POLICY FAILURES AND INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC
On the topic of the role of the national government in the asylum system, respondents expressed concern, frustration and scepticism about the government’s approach. Apprehension over recent government plans such as using barracks and remote facilities for asylum accommodation was noted – these plans were described as “inhumane” and “potentially traumatising”. Disapproval of the Illegal Migration Act and the Nationality and Borders Act was also expressed given that they are perceived to be undermining integration efforts. These pieces of legislation have drawn widespread criticism, particularly from third sector organisations, for their detrimental effect on the asylum system. One respondent declared that the Illegal Migration Act “would amount to an asylum ban”. Indeed, such a claim is credible because UK asylum law still stubbornly maintains that to claim asylum one must physically be in the UK, offering no safe and legal routes to the UK for asylum seekers. Compounded with this incongruous legislation has been the rise in harmful rhetoric and misinformation from government ministers to MPs and political commentators.
Respondents emphasised that harmful rhetoric and misinformation must be combatted and a more clear reality of refugees and the barriers they face be articulated. One respondent argued: “To improve integration, the government must begin by stopping its demonisation and criminalisation of asylum seekers. It must be honest with the public about the conflicts and persecution that people are fleeing, and it must commit to building a system that is based on believing people’s testimonies.” Government policy and rhetoric have construed the asylum system as “broken” without considering how it has served to complicate issues facing the system and asylum seekers. For example, the government’s performance in tackling the small boats problem has been regarded as “calamitous”. Home secretaries, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman opted for headline grabbing announcements and inflammatory rhetoric instead of the quiet diplomacy and competent administration that the situation demanded. It is therefore no surprise that many respondents expressed frustration and scepticism about the government’s approach.
A COHERENT AND COORDINATED GOVERNMENT STRATEGY
Within the report there was significant emphasis on the need for a comprehensive national integration strategy although opinions differed on how this should materialise. Some suggested that the strategy should be delivered by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) whereas others suggested that an independent body coordinate activities at different levels, including voluntary, local, and devolved actors. These suggestions can be credited for being on the right path; however, one could question whether the solution to poor governance is more governance. Instead, existing strategies should be reformed and expanded. In February 2023 the government confirmed that the enhanced integrated package would be delivered through the refugee employability programme. The programme was announced the following September and was designed to complement existing support that is delivered across mainstream services and the voluntary sector by providing tailored employment support such as skills courses, additional English language provision and integration support with accessing health and local services. However, the programme is limited to England and had an eligibility criteria that prioritised arrivals after the implementation of the Nationality and Borders Act and arrivals via the resettlement schemes or family reunion. If the government wants to maximise the ability of local authorities to improve integration efforts as outlined in the Integrated communities action plan for England, it could begin with a comprehensive national strategy with a similar targeted focus as the employability programme but with less stringent eligibility.
Central to all government functions is effective communication which respondents in the report outlined as a hindrance to integration efforts because of a “communication gap between local authorities and central government entities”. This is a common critique heard across local authorities and third sector organisations but sufficient progress is yet to be made. The report suggests that shared objectives must be identified along with clear lines of responsibility among ‘stakeholders’ established. A new guiding framework from the government would help facilitate more efficient management and service delivery; however, the government should also acknowledge that far more efficient communication and information sharing with the Home Office is necessary. The Home Office has demonstrated it has the functional and authoritative capabilities to gather information in the creation of the ‘hostile environment’, thus it can do the same for integration efforts by facilitating better coordination with local authorities.
Some respondents proposed that international agreements for a fair and coordinated approach to refugee reception be established, unfortunately, this response is not is not sufficiently detailed. The absence of international asylum and refugee coordination and accompanying frameworks represent a major hindrance for the efficient management of immigration pressures. If the government is serious about its quest to fix the system then it must realise that to effectively manage and regulate the flows of asylum seekers, coordination with its immediate neighbours must be improved. Some progress seems to have been made under the new Sunak government seeking to expand on the small boats pact from previous governments but it is still not a priority. Instead, the government has doubled down on its inoperative Rwanda Plan. The need for return agreements with safe countries is no doubt necessary yet current government policy maintains that people coming from safe countries of origin or who have a connection to a safe country are inadmissible for asylum. As a result of the failure to negotiate new agreements following Brexit, rather embarrassingly, the government has no return agreements (barring Albania) any safe countries. It is lamentable that such failures were allowed to materialise and continue to persist this far on. Future government policy should prioritise establishing international agreements that coordinates the approach to asylum among the UK and its continental neighbours, including return agreements and information sharing.
REFORMING THE ASYLUM SYSTEM
Another key area of the asylum system in dire need of reform is undoubtedly the limited availability of safe and legal routes to seek asylum. Respondents emphasised that the absence of available routes pushes individuals towards dangerous and illegal paths. The government has maintained that their policies are aimed at breaking the smuggling networks in which many individuals seeking to come to the UK turn to; the Rwanda Plan is argued by the current government as on course to break the business model of such networks. Perhaps surprisingly, the government appears not to have understood that asylum seekers make a totally different assessment of risk, having either escaped oppression or conflict in their home countries. Undertaking an irregular and dangerous journey for many is a risk worth taking to get to the UK. Therefore, it is unlikely that asylum seekers will be deterred by the theoretical threat the government has doubled down on or if it comes to pass, the practice of deporting a few hundred at best.
Creating safe and legal routes would undermine the smugglers’ business model and would certainly be more humane. Existing safe routes already exist for those fleeing the war in Ukraine, for those from Hong Kong with British National Overseas status and for Afghans who worked with the British pre-Taliban, (although this last route seems not to be working). Once again, the government could expand these schemes so they are available for a greater number of people seeking asylum. Nevertheless, if safe routes are to be expanded, sceptics would demand questions surrounding eligibility, logistics, and capacity be fully answered. It is a shame the report did not explore this notion at great length. Some may fear that more safe routes would simply encourage even larger numbers of asylum seekers with some potentially abusing the system. It is doubtful any government would have the political will to tackle this and take such a risk, nevertheless, such a strategy would at least enable the government to manage and regulate the flows of incoming asylum seekers in contrast to the uncertain and chaotic situation currently facing the system.
There was a prevailing consensus among respondents that viewed the current system as uncertain and inhumane, criticising the asylum system itself and the lack of information available to asylum seekers. Moreover, the asylum backlog has been one of the most pressing issues facing the system, and by extension the Home Office. Inevitably, respondents called attention to the extended waiting times and the resulting backlog of cases, with their adverse financial implications amidst limited state support. Unfortunately, the report does not offer much on how this may be addressed; but one could assume respondents may favour a single simplified resource outlining all relevant information would be a starting point. Inspiration may be taken from the American CBP One mobile app, which gives asylum seekers direct access to enter their information as a pre-screening step before an appointment. A similar resource could certainly be utilised in the UK for the thousands of asylum seekers already in the country and in the midst of an application. Currently, the Home Office lists the various resources and information on its website but it is difficult to navigate for asylum seekers. Consequently, third sector organisations dedicate substantial amounts of working time assisting asylum seekers locate and navigate information, resources and complete applications. A simplified resource that is simple to use and allows for better navigation of the asylum system would support asylum seekers in accessing and completing required resources in a timely manner. Concerns may be raised about the effectiveness of such a system because it is often assumed that asylum seekers have limited access to internet and mobile services which although true to an extent but should be challenged. The existing system increasingly relies on online services for scheduling interviews, coordinating services, submitting and tracking applications and so on. Therefore, ensuring that the service becomes more user friendly and efficient is essential.
CONCLUSION
The report certainly dives into important issues facing the asylum system and asylum seeker integration efforts and should be credited for gaining a consensus in these key areas among stakeholders. At times the report would have benefited from more detailed explorations of solutions by encouraging respondents to explain their answers at greater depth. Similarly, differences in opinion could have also been outlined more clearly so readers may understand which areas require greater consensus building. Nevertheless, the report provides a useful resource for engaging with the opinions of a diverse pool of stakeholders in relation to asylum integration. The full report is definitely a resource worth analysing and readers should be encouraged to draw their own conclusions.
Net-zero Goals and Regional Inequalities: Opportunities and Risks of an Industrial Transition
By Anastasia Guerra, Contributing Editor 2022
Fossil fuel reliance, carbon emissions, and regional inequalities are interconnected issues. In Greater Manchester, the effect of air quality on its population contributes to at least 1200 early deaths every year, with Manchester ranking among the top most polluted cities in the UK. The most affected individuals are the most vulnerable, those living in poverty and in low-income areas. These are the same people who might struggle more to afford care for health complications related to pollution exposure, and whose conditions are likely to worsen due to poor quality housing. Manchester is particularly subject to these issues. Its risk of flooding threatens to increase the number of damp households and to exacerbate mental and physical health for those affected.
This is not only Manchester’s story; correlations between pollution exposure and social inequalities are persistent across the UK. Those living in the most deprived areas are exposed to higher levels of air pollution, and the 85% of people living in areas with illegal levels of NO2 concentration, are in the poorest 20% of the population. If this wasn’t challenging enough, in October 2021 already four million households found themselves in fuel poverty. With the energy price cap rising from April 2022, significantly more households are now under the same threat. These are only a few of the ways carbon emissions and the current energy sector impact on regional inequalities.
In spite of necessity to address this issue, in the Levelling Up White Paper released in February 2022, environmental and sustainability goals found themselves at the fifteenth place of sixteen priorities. No clear strategy was provided on how to align regional inequality policies with the need for shifting from imported gas dependency, reducing emissions, and achieving net-zero goals. This gap in policy vision is problematic considering the many local opportunities an aligned strategy would provide, and even more problematic if we consider the risks behind a lack of alignment among policies. Covering the full extent of their merging would require much more ink spilt than available here. This article will therefore focus on the green and energy industries, showing how their contribution to net-zero goals can also be a catalyst for regional empowerment if installed in a regionally sensitive manner. It will then illustrate how clear alignment between levelling up and net-zero agendas is also needed because risks of unjust net-zero transition can arise from their separation.
Green industry development has been recognised as a key element for reaching net-zero.
Green industries can be defined as those that “strive for a more sustainable growth pathway,” and that align with current environmental conditions, environmental risks, and ecological scarcities. Key sectors include renewable energy, carbon capture, agriculture, clean transportation, green financing, and ecotourism.
Green industry development strategies have great potential to give underperforming regions unique advantages, if strategically designed within those areas. This is because, while addressing the air pollution and health crisis, they generate economic, social, and environmental benefits. These benefits are linked to firms becoming more resource-efficient, innovative, and technologically advanced, whilst also creating new industries, jobs, and markets.
The implementation of a locally-focused green industry development strategy could therefore facilitate regional structural change, helping areas replace high carbon-reliant industries, fostering the creation of unique growth models specially tailored to local conditions.
Moreover, many areas in the UK already have latent potential to unlock these opportunities to grow. Interesting geographical patterns have been observed in the returns to the investment of clean innovation. These reuters appear to be relatively higher when such investments occur in less productive and innovation-intense locations, than in other areas. This happens as the biggest fractions of clean firms amongst all the firms within a specific area, have been found in regions with lower regional productivity.
The northwest of England in particular, with its relatively more skilled regional labour force, has great potential to benefit from the green industry transition, in an optimistic trajectory of 170,60 direct jobs employed in the low-carbon and renewable energy sectors. Looking in more detail at the northwest region, the increasing uptake of sustainability and green industry growth represents a considerable opportunity for Greater Manchester’s local economy. This is indeed already happening. The low carbon sector in Greater Manchester already generates £6.8 billion in sales and is now expanding in ensuring energy-efficient practices in both commercial and domestic sectors, and in becoming self-sufficient by generating energy locally. This focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy consumption reduction, can play a crucial role in lifting up the burden of high energy prices from the most deprived regions and most vulnerable communities. Enhancing insulation measures and increasing low carbon heat sources, for example, are expected to benefit Greater Manchester citizens directly, giving residents more disposable income, helping lift families out of poverty, and improving regional health and wellbeing.
We observed how transitioning to net-zero can be a powerful tool for levelling up. This tool, however, does not come without risks. As shown previously, net-zero transition signifies industrial change. Shifts out of “old industries” into new ones can generate unemployment, economic underdevelopment, and the exacerbation of poverty for local communities, when such changes are occurring without careful local socio-economic consideration. A net-zero transition blind to regional disparities can potentially exacerbate them. Therefore, a concrete plan to align net-zero and levelling up commitments is not merely needed for the opportunities it would generate, but because its absence poses a risk to undermine both agendas.
Most communities in the UK that experienced an industrial change, such as the closing of coal pits and heavy industries in the 1980-90s, are still dealing with the long-term impacts of the industrial decline in rising unemployment, precarious work, and persistently poor health outcomes. Of no less importance, past traumas and conflicts from this period and from 1984/85 miners’ strikes are also not forgotten. In Nottinghamshire for example, the majority of people refused to participate in strikes, creating great divisions between strikers and working miners. Events like these remain an open wound for the communities affected, still scarred by the tensions laid down during the miners’ strikes.
The only way to avoid repeating history is by installing strategic regionally-focused policies which can guarantee a just transition to net-zero. Concepts of levelling up and net-zero should go beyond appealing slogans that hide a fragmented and narrow focus. We can not afford to look at only one side of the story and to deliver out-of-touch and incomprehensive solutions. The climate crisis and the need to shift to a low-carbon economy have huge implications for locals, with legitimate concerns about their livelihoods. These concerns are valid and should be taken into account.
How to make sure net-zero goals are fairly integrated into helping achieve levelling up goals?
Although the answer is certainly complex, I believe three fundamental elements should be at the basis of any integrated net-zero and levelling up policies. The first one is the necessity to apply local and geographically sensitive approaches. This element encompasses the need for an appropriate assessment of the unique and geographically different opportunities and risks, as well as consideration for specific communities involved and their needs. I am talking therefore about place-based industry strategies, skills development programmes, and localised investment channelled towards particular sectors, according to the specific regional potential and needs. In the case of Greater Manchester, for example, this would translate into placing a major focus on developing the green transport industry to tackle their lack of appropriate transport system.
Although issues related to transportation are ubiquitous across the north-west, the transport system in Greater Manchester is arguably the weakest element of the city-region, and the most determinant factor for holding it back. Manchester’s lack of appropriate transport links impedes efficiency across the region despite its concentration of highly productive activity and knowledge assets, concentration that is not necessarily found in other areas with similar transport issues. Transport related carbon emissions represent also the largest proportion of Greater Manchester’s total emissions, with petrol and diesel fuelled cars being one of the major contributors of the entire sector’s emissions.
The implementation of a place-based strategy delivering a net-zero sensible and fully-integrated public transport system, could directly contribute to levelling up, improving air quality, improving shared mobility, and providing better alternatives to private vehicles use. To achieve this, the strategy needs to tackle the singular and specific needs that affect Greater Manchester, namely transport network improvement and high car usage.
The second aspect focuses on ensuring the aforementioned sectoral and regional sensitive policies are equally economically, environmentally, and socially considerate. For instance, job transitions should not only be environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial, but first and foremost guarantee decent, healthy and secure positions that take into account pay, autonomy, and progression. Moreover, this sensitivity to the social aspects must have an intersectional inclusivity lens. If we look at the proposal for green industry development, we can’t avoid addressing the existing gender bias in these male-dominated economic sectors, for example. This sensitivity should be translated into another fundamental aspect of successful transition policies, which is the inclusion of affected communities in the projects. Levelling up and net-zero policies should be done with, by, and for locals. Programmes such as In our Nature and the organisation of Manchester’s first Community Assembly on climate change in partnership with local partners and cooperatives as Envirolution and the Manchester Climate Change Agency, are examples of initiatives that can increase residents and communities’ participation into the debate. Making sure citizens’ needs and concerns are at the centre of policy decisions therefore can not be avoided. Let’s ask employee ownerships, key workers, households, students, and cooperatives about their opinion. If the transition to net-zero is not designed fairly towards them, public support for climate policies will crumble, and levelling up will fail. Every policy action should represent this balance between economic, social, and environmental conditions.
Lastly, there should be multilevel governance coordination. To help empower regions, we need the central government to provide ambitious nationwide schemes that are in line with the daily decisions of local leaders on net zero. National efforts towards net-zero should be merged with genuine devolution of power to regional and local governments. To achieve policy solutions that are both regionally sensitive, and that respect economic, social, and environmental conditions, local authorities need to be allowed to control aspects related to local funding, education, skills, and community support.
Respecting these three elements is the foundation to create a locally-sensitive and decentralised net-zero transition, that will successfully align with solutions to regional inequality. Decoupling growth from fossil fuel consumption is expected to create new kinds of disruptions, requiring new kinds of policies. Plans on investment, regulation, government spending, skills development, and civil society participation will require to be part of new holistic policy strategies. This is definitely a challenging approach to design and implement, but a much-needed one if we really want to build a more climate-resilient and prosperous future not only within Greater Manchester but for all regions and people across the UK.