Homelessness and overseas aid a toD oriorit

John Battle MP
PERHAPS it's some consolation for those who wanted homelessness and overseas aid to be higher up the political agenda to know that during the General Election in April this year, the Prime Minister received more letters on these topics than any other subject.
In recent weeks it has been reported that letters opposing strongly rumoured cuts in overseas aid have deluged the Prime Minister's office. Usually, however, hard budget decisions override caring concerns, whether in the conclave of the cabinet discussing next year's public expenditure round or in the privacy of the voting booth fearing higher personal taxation.
Since the General Election, an awakening to the deepening recession, coupled with
withdrawal form the ERM has resulted in stronger and louder noises about the need for severe cuts in public spending. The estimated total of £244.5 billion for next year must not be exceeded, we are told.
-Leaving aside whether these total figures still mean anything given the mis-estimates of recent years, this round's preparations have included a shifting emphasis on the need to protect some capital project (such as road programmes and the Jubilee Line) and therefore to reduce revenue current running programmes.
Since the Social Security budget is the largest at £70 billion • and the fastest expanding revenue programme as unemployment rises, it has been moved onto centre stage as the prime target for cuts. Various options have been publically floated such as reducing unemployment benefit entitlement at a stroke from 12 months to six months (despite the effect on mortgage interest repayments), or taxing Invalidity Benefit. There are also proposals simply to reduce the value of pensions, unemployment and invalidity benefit in real terms by breaking the statutory obligation to update them each year in line with inflation.
It's difficult at this stage to get an answer to the hypothetical question of how much the Government would save by fixing the benefit increase to 2 per cent.
The Dutch bishops in a pastoral letter in the mid 1980's insisted that working for justice means tackling budgets but what is amazing in our context is the way in which budget discussions eclipse any basic background considerations.
IT'S BARELY three months since the Government
published the report "Households Below Average Income 1979 -1988/9" which spelt out that although there had been an average increase of 30 per cent in the last decade, the poorest tenth of the populadon 5.6 million people had a reduction In their incomes of 6 per cent.
In other words, the very poorest had to pay more than everybody else.
Since it was published on the last day of Parliament
before the summer break, this report has yet to be discussed in Parliament.
In the last few weeks, a survey entitled "Deep in Debt" published by the National Children's Homes paints, as the Chief Executive Tom White puts it, "a shocking picture of family life for tens of thousands of UK households struggling to manage on income support on very low earnings".
In Yorkshire and the North East, 85 per cent of the families questioned were living on an income of less than £130 per week, with 95 per cent of them borrowing at some time. Overall, 82 per cent of families receiving benefits were living on less than £100 a week .
In other words a disturbing number of low income families are having to borrow to pay for essentials. 32 per cent of parents
surveyed blamed financial worries for their separation or divorce from their partners and two thirds who were deeply in debt were worried that their children's behaviour was affected by financial difficulties.
Surely both these report should be considered before social security spending is cut?
TO ADD a provocative note. According to a recent report in Business Age the Government has lost £47 blffion in potential tax revenue because of a Treasury blunder in clause 40 of the 1981 Finance Act enabling businesses to place assets in the name of trusts in off-shore tax havens to avoid capital gains tax.
The estimated loss if recouped would mean that the Social Security budget could remain unscathed.