Women's Views on News |
| Fears of housing cap effect on refuges Posted: 01 Feb 2016 11:21 AM PST
Women's refuges in Scotland could be forced to close because planned changes to housing benefit would leave them with shortfalls of tens of thousands of pounds a year, Scottish Women's Aid has warned. Scottish Women's Aid has "serious concerns" about the impact that the proposed cap on social housing rents at Local Housing Allowance rates will have on refuge accommodation in Scotland, where all refuge accommodation is owned by social landlords. Scottish Women's Aid is calling for refuges to be made exempt from the proposals, and has written to Lord Freud, Minister for State for Welfare Reform, to raise their concerns. George Osborne set out plans to extend the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate to social landlords in his Autumn Statement and Spending Review in November 2015. The move effectively caps the amount of housing benefit that housing association and council tenancies will receive, and will come into force from April 2018 for any tenancy which starts on or after 1 April 2016. This will include people living in supported accommodation such as refuges. Research by Scottish Women's Aid showed that refuge rent and service charge costs are significantly higher than the LHA rate, and would leave refuges struggling to meet the funding shortfall. The organisation also warned that women would be "effectively prevented" from leaving an abusive partner, because of proposals to introduce a shared accommodation rate to those under the age of 35. A study conducted by the charity suggested that, in a rural area, introducing a cap linked to the LHA rate would result in an annual loss of £5,800 for a 2-bedroom refuge flat. In an urban area, the annual loss for a 1-bedroom refuge flat would be £7,100, and in another semi-urban area the loss on a 3 bedroom refuge would be £11,600 per year. In each case this financial cost will be multiplied by the number of refuge spaces provided. Scottish Women's Aid said the LHA rates "bear no relation" to the actual cost to Women's Aid groups of leasing accommodation from social landlords and the associated service charge costs. This is because of the additional cost involved in providing and managing refuge accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic abuse, which are higher because of more intensive housing management because of the crisis nature of admission, the special vulnerability of the women and children concerned, variable lengths of stay and rapid turnover. Costs are also increased by the need for extra safety and security measures and the Many refuges also include additional facilities such as communal rooms for counselling and therapeutic playrooms for children. The proposed changes will also extend to the under-35s shared accommodation to the social rented housing sector. This would mean that women under 35 without dependent children living with them would only be entitled to the lower shared accommodation rate of housing benefit. In the letter, Scottish Women's Aid's chief executive, Dr Marsha Scott, said: "This will have a devastating impact on the future provision of refuge accommodation in Scotland, where all refuge accommodation is in the ownership of either housing associations or local authorities. "As you are aware there are a range of additional costs involved in providing and managing refuge accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. "LHA rates bear no relation to the actual cost to Women's Aid groups of leasing accommodation from social landlords and the associated service charge costs. "Without the existing level of housing benefit to cover costs, refuges will be forced to close." Scottish Women's Aid also warned that proposals to introduce a shared accommodation rate to those under the age of 35 would place women at greater risk of abuse. In the letter Dr Scott said: "If women under the age of 35 are unable to access refuge accommodation or move into their own tenancy because of a restriction on their entitlement to housing benefit, this effectively prevents them from leaving an abusive partner. " "In 2014-15, the 26-30 years old age group had the highest incident rate of domestic "Women in this age group clearly have a significant need for domestic abuse support services – including refuge accommodation. "We understand that the proposal is to use Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) to top up the gap between LHA rates and the actual costs of providing supported accommodation. "We believe that this form of 'discretionary' funding for refuge provision is far too insecure and uncertain a funding mechanism to allow Women's Aid to continue to provide refuge accommodation. "It would mean local authorities deciding at an individual level whose support needs will be met – or not. "We believe this would create additional barriers, not to mention risk, for women and children experiencing domestic abuse." "We understand that policy on supported accommodation is still being developed and would urge you to ensure that your commitment to protect refuge accommodation is reflected in these developments." Speaking after the letter was sent, Dr Scott said: "If in fact the current system did not operate to make women effectively homeless in order to qualify for support, indeed if housing resources were invested to allow women and children to stay safely in their own homes, these benefit changes would be less heinous. "Sadly, an already dysfunctional system is being made even worse for women and children, with little or no evidence that the impact on women and children living with domestic abuse has even been considered in policy making." Dundee Women's Aid's manager Mary Miller said the service faced a loss of up to £220,751 a year if the changes go ahead. She said: "This will have a devastating effect on refuge provision in Dundee and indeed the whole of Scotland. "Refuges in Dundee are owned by the council or Housing Associations and will therefore be affected by this proposal. "Should it become legislation we would have no alternative but to close the 17 refuges we currently provide".  |
| Posted: 01 Feb 2016 11:12 AM PST
Natasha Adams, Tax Campaign manager with Action Aid, explains. Taxes are the key building blocks of societies. They pay for the vast array of public services that societies rely on, and that people living in poverty so badly need. But when tax dodging starves public services of funding, it's women and girls who pay the highest price. Healthcare, education, childcare, water, sanitation, electricity, police, roads, street lighting – you name it – it’s tax that makes (or should make) all these services possible. Right now the global tax system is not working for women and it is making the world more unequal. Tax could help to fund better schools and hospitals, yet it is estimated that developing countries lose USD200 billion a year to tax avoidance by big companies. To put that in perspective, it is more than they receive in international aid. Most of the poorest people in the world are women and children. This is no coincidence. Men still dominate positions of power, whether in local communities or international institutions, leading to discrimination against women and placing less value on their time, their work and their voices. Women are less likely to have a paid job and girls are less likely to be allowed to go to school. As a result, women have to take on the vast burden of unpaid care – walking hours for water and carrying back heavy containers; preparing food on an open stove; and caring for the sick and the elderly. As well as having a devastating impact on their lives and their ability to re-shape the communities they live in, this means women are even more dependent on underfunded public services. Who needs healthcare? Women and girls. Childbirth means that women are far more likely to need life-saving healthcare than men. The appallingly high prevalence of violence against women globally, such as domestic violence, female genital mutilation, acid attacks and rape, also violates women's sexual and reproductive health and rights. It means that women are at far higher risk of infections, STIs, HIV/AIDs, and complications from childbirth – all of which are potentially fatal without adequate medical care or treatment. As women commonly bear the responsibility for care of children, the sick and the elderly, it's also women who will be desperately seeking healthcare for the young and the vulnerable. Kenya has some of the highest maternal and child mortality rates in the world, with one in 20 children dying before their fifth birthday. Millicent Ouma is head nurse and director of a clinic in Kibera slum, Nairobi. People there rely on clinics as there are no public hospitals in Kibera. “Kibera is totally neglected in terms of public service," she explained. "The government do not collect enough taxes and therefore they have to prioritise where to spend money. "The shantytowns are some of the losers – we lack everything in terms of health service. We do our best at my clinic, but we need more resources.” If companies paid a fair amount of tax, more money could be invested in good quality hospitals, more doctors and nurses and cheaper services that would save lives and improve the health of women and girls. The government do not collect enough taxes and therefore they can only prioritise where to spend money. Who needs education? Women and girls. Education is key to women's empowerment, to being able to engage in decision-making in society, to challenge gender discrimination and to get a decent job. A child born to a literate mother is 50 per cent less likely to die before the age of five. Every extra year of education is estimated to increase a girl's earning power by up to 20 per cent. Girls who have completed seven years of education will marry on average five years later than uneducated girls. Increasingly more and more communities are recognising the importance of sending their daughters to school, but if fees are expensive – it is often girls' education that is sacrificed. Lengondwe lives in Chiozga village in Malawi and has four children. She really wants them all to go to school, but she can only afford to send one. Lengondwe said, “I really want all my children to be in school and get educated so they will be able to support themselves. "I also worry that [if they don’t go to school] they will be forced to get married early and will still be dependent on other people. "If they delay their marriages, it means they will stay in education and can have delayed pregnancies and get better jobs.” For girls who are in school, many are not getting a quality education due to the shocking lack of resources. Rosemary Mpapa is a student at Ndege School in Zambia. The school is very basic and resources are scarce. Many children don't have desks and students struggle to focus in such a poor learning environment. "The classrooms are very small and we sit three to four at each table that is made for only two people,” Rosemary said. “We are 55 students in my class. "I want the Government to help the poor instead of putting the rich first. "I know they don't have enough money, but they should put the children and the sick first with the little they have." Rosemary clearly needs a far better learning environment. But good schools cost money. Lots of it. Zambia's government wants free education – but without funding this is impossible to achieve. ActionAid's 'Sweet Nothings' report revealed how Zambia Sugar, the second largest sugar company in the world, had been paying less than 0.5 per cent tax. So there is lots of money, it’s just that it’s being drained out of the country. If big companies paid their fair share of tax there could be much more to invest in education. Who needs safer cities the most? Women and girls. All around the world, one in three women will experience violence in their lifetime. Poor women living in poorly policed, ill-lit slums are often at increased risk of violence and harassment, and face greater barriers to accessing justice. Jaqueline, from Sao Paulo in Brazil and is studying at college, explained: "If I attend college in two years I can get do what I like, which is working with children. "I'm only afraid of the way I have to walk to college, because it is very dark. The fear has never stopped me going to class because I have a major goal. "But I go all my way praying, asking God to protect me, because I am afraid of being robbed and raped." Ensuring that big companies pay their fair share of tax could mean greater investment in public services like policing, public transport, street-lighting and support services for survivors of abuse, delivered to meet the needs of women. This is fundamental to tackling violence, so that women can participate as equal citizens of society. Last year the women of Heliopolis in Sao Paulo celebrated that their streets now have more lights, helping all residents, especially women, to return to their homes safely at night. Their victory was a result of intense campaigning for safe cities for women with support of the region’s Women’s Movement and in partnership with ActionAid Brazil. Women campaigned for street lights in Sao Paulo, Brazil, to make the cities’ streets safer for women. When governments fail to make big businesses pay their fair share or fail to ensure that money raised is spent on public services, it is the rest of society – especially women and girls – who pay the price. Local business can't copy the offshore arrangements used by some global companies. And while half of small business owners in Malawi are female, nine out of every ten billionaires are men. The majority of global shareholdings are held by men. In a bid to maintain revenue, many countries rely heavily on taxes on products – like VAT – which hit women hardest. Taxes applied to basic goods such as soap, salt and sugar hurt women more, since in caring for their families they spend more of their wages than men on basic goods. And when governments don't have enough money to provide essential public services, or choose to cut spending, it is women who fill the gap by providing unpaid labour and care. So, whether you want to support better hospitals; stop violence against women and girls; make cities safe for women; ensure more girls get a quality public education; and support women's economic equality by reducing the burden of unpaid care – it all needs adequate funding. So, where will the money come from? This question should concern all activists for women's and girls’ rights. Too often governments claim there isn't enough money. But reforms in tax policy could help raise the revenues countries need to fund better public services. No more corporate tax dodging – because right now the global tax system is not working for women and it is making the world more unequal. The way the international tax system works means that many big companies are not paying their fair share in poorer countries. IMF research estimates that developing countries may lose USD200 billion a year to corporate tax avoidance. How much is this? Enough to: educate all the 59 million children who currently don't go to primary school; AND provide the agricultural investment (USD42.7 billion) needed to achieve a world free from hunger; AND meet international goals to reduce ill health more than twice over (USD58.9 billion). Feminists and women's rights organisations have been demanding change for decades. We want women and girls to have better access to healthcare, education and work; we want the burden of unpaid care to be reduced; we want women and girls to have a life free from violence and discrimination; and we want them to have an equal voice in their community. ActionAid is campaigning for a democratic global tax system that gives developing countries a voice, that helps them to find a sustainable route out of poverty and that prioritises women and girls. ActionAid is demanding that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, and that governments invest that revenue in services that mean that women and girls can enjoy their fundamental human rights. Will you help us? Will you take action to make tax fair, everywhere? Since 1955, the UK has had a tax treaty with Malawi, the world's poorest country, making it possible for UK companies operating in Malawi to pay little or no corporate tax. This is money that should be funding Malawi's public services. Malawi has the world's highest rate of maternal mortality, partly because healthcare is so underfunded. There are only 300 doctors in a country of 16 million people. If companies paid their fair share of tax, investment in public services could be increased so that women and girls no longer pay the price. Activists in Malawi and the UK are fighting to make the tax treaty between the UK and Malawi fair. If enough of us come together we can achieve lasting change. We're calling on the UK government to put the fight against poverty at the heart of its tax policy. It needs to renegotiate its treaty with Malawi, to make sure that UK companies pay their fair share of tax in the world's poorest country. Please sign our petition. The petition is for treasury minister David Gauke, asking him to make sure the UK's tax treaty with Malawi enables Malawi to fairly tax the money UK multinational companies take out of their country. This money is urgently needed to fund essential services like healthcare and education.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |