Contraception is not a panacea

The UK Government/Gates Foundation summit on family planning is a good thing, but we can't be fooled into thinking it can solve all our problems.

Every day around the world 1,000 women die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. Think about it: that’s 365,000 women every year – almost as many as the total population of Bristol.

In many of the world’s poorest countries early marriage, overstretched healthcare services and low adoption of modern contraception methods together create a situation where pregnancy can be a cause for real concern as well as celebration.

So it is great news that the prime minister will tomorrow host a joint UK Government/Gates Foundation summit on family planning intended to provide 120 million women with access to contraception over the next eight years at a cost of £2.6bn.

David Cameron and International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell certainly deserve real credit for putting the issue of family planning firmly on the development agenda. Giving millions more women the means to choose when and whether to start families will not only save lives, it will also help families who are struggling to feed their existing children avoid unwanted pregnancies. And it could play a role in helping younger brides delay pregnancy until they are ready to have children.

But the government needs to avoid the misconception that contraception is a panacea. Girls forced into early marriage, for example, often have less control over the choice about when to start a family. Handing out contraceptives is necessary but not enough. These efforts need to be backed up by education and support services that empower women to assert their rights. And women who choose to get pregnant will still die unnecessarily unless there are good quality health services to take care of them.

Alongside the provision of contraception we need more programmes like the one Oxfam runs in Hadrahmout Governate in Yemen where only a quarter of the population has access to primary healthcare.  There we are building health facilities, distributing home delivery kits and supporting health education and awareness raising programmes. We are also training midwives, a process which not only improves healthcare but can also raise the status of women in society.
These issues may not get much airtime at the summit, to be held on July 11, World Population Day, which is planned as the government’s latest effort to communicate to the British public the benefits our aid brings. In these tough economic times, ministers deserve a loud cheer for its unwavering commitment to keeping Britain’s promises to the poorest in the face of some significant opposition on their own backbenches and beyond.

There are potentially two reasons why ministers find family planning an attractive topic for such an event. Firstly, giving women a chance to gain control of their own reproductive health is something that can save lives, and that we can all understand.

Critics opposed to aid or who believe that our concern for the poorest should begin and end at home have two simple questions to answer: do you believe that it is right that women in Sierra Leone, for example, are more than 70 times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth than those in the UK? If not, what would you do about it?

The second attraction of family planning is potentially more problematic. Population growth is the public’s number one concern about development– yes, higher than corruption. This goes beyond simple prejudice about growing numbers of Africans or Asians (although that doubtless does exist) - it is also fuelled by concerns that population growth is responsible for climate change and other environmental problems.

This is based on a fallacy. It is consumption in the rich rather than the poor world that is primarily responsible for the pressure on our planet. In the 25 years to 2005, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for almost a fifth of the growth in the world’s population but only 2.4 per cent of the increase in CO2 emissions. By contrast, North America was responsible for four per cent of population growth but a staggering 13.9 per cent of the rise in emissions.

These facts did not stop the Optimum Population Trust deciding a couple of years ago, ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit, to launch a carbon off-setting scheme where instead of planting forests your money was used to fund family planning in poor countries.

It is the government’s job to challenge public prejudice which is not based on fact. It needs to find ways to ensure that tomorrow’s summit avoids reinforcing such lazy and (for us high consumers) convenient thinking.

Barbara Stocking is Chief Executive of Oxfam

Indian programme officer G. Shilpa poses with a female condom at an awareness camp in Hyderabad. Photograph: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Q&A: What are tax credits and how do they work?

All you need to know about the government's plan to cut tax credits.

What are tax credits?

Tax credits are payments made regularly by the state into bank accounts to support families with children, or those who are in low-paid jobs. There are two types of tax credit: the working tax credit and the child tax credit.

What are they for?

To redistribute income to those less able to get by, or to provide for their children, on what they earn.

Are they similar to tax relief?

No. They don’t have much to do with tax. They’re more of a welfare thing. You don’t need to be a taxpayer to receive tax credits. It’s just that, unlike other benefits, they are based on the tax year and paid via the tax office.

Who is eligible?

Anyone aged over 16 (for child tax credits) and over 25 (for working tax credits) who normally lives in the UK can apply for them, depending on their income, the hours they work, whether they have a disability, and whether they pay for childcare.

What are their circumstances?

The more you earn, the less you are likely to receive. Single claimants must work at least 16 hours a week. Let’s take a full-time worker: if you work at least 30 hours a week, you are generally eligible for working tax credits if you earn less than £13,253 a year (if you’re single and don’t have children), or less than £18,023 (jointly as part of a couple without children but working at least 30 hours a week).

And for families?

A family with children and an income below about £32,200 can claim child tax credit. It used to be that the more children you have, the more you are eligible to receive – but George Osborne in his most recent Budget has limited child tax credit to two children.

How much money do you receive?

Again, this depends on your circumstances. The basic payment for a single claimant, or a joint claim by a couple, of working tax credits is £1,940 for the tax year. You can then receive extra, depending on your circumstances. For example, single parents can receive up to an additional £2,010, on top of the basic £1,940 payment; people who work more than 30 hours a week can receive up to an extra £810; and disabled workers up to £2,970. The average award of tax credit is £6,340 per year. Child tax credit claimants get £545 per year as a flat payment, plus £2,780 per child.

How many people claim tax credits?

About 4.5m people – the vast majority of these people (around 4m) have children.

How much does it cost the taxpayer?

The estimation is that they will cost the government £30bn in April 2015/16. That’s around 14 per cent of the £220bn welfare budget, which the Tories have pledged to cut by £12bn.

Who introduced this system?

New Labour. Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, developed tax credits in his first term. The system as we know it was established in April 2003.

Why did they do this?

To lift working people out of poverty, and to remove the disincentives to work believed to have been inculcated by welfare. The tax credit system made it more attractive for people depending on benefits to work, and gave those in low-paid jobs a helping hand.

Did it work?

Yes. Tax credits’ biggest achievement was lifting a record number of children out of poverty since the war. The proportion of children living below the poverty line fell from 35 per cent in 1998/9 to 19 per cent in 2012/13.

So what’s the problem?

Well, it’s a bit of a weird system in that it lets companies pay wages that are too low to live on without the state supplementing them. Many also criticise tax credits for allowing the minimum wage – also brought in by New Labour – to stagnate (ie. not keep up with the rate of inflation). David Cameron has called the system of taxing low earners and then handing them some money back via tax credits a “ridiculous merry-go-round”.

Then it’s a good thing to scrap them?

It would be fine if all those low earners and families struggling to get by would be given support in place of tax credits – a living wage, for example.

And that’s why the Tories are introducing a living wage...

That’s what they call it. But it’s not. The Chancellor announced in his most recent Budget a new minimum wage of £7.20 an hour for over-25s, rising to £9 by 2020. He called this the “national living wage” – it’s not, because the current living wage (which is calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, and currently non-compulsory) is already £9.15 in London and £7.85 in the rest of the country.

Will people be better off?

No. Quite the reverse. The IFS has said this slightly higher national minimum wage will not compensate working families who will be subjected to tax credit cuts; it is arithmetically impossible. The IFS director, Paul Johnson, commented: “Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.” It has been calculated that 3.2m low-paid workers will have their pay packets cut by an average of £1,350 a year.

Could the government change its policy to avoid this?

The Prime Minister and his frontbenchers have been pretty stubborn about pushing on with the plan. In spite of criticism from all angles – the IFS, campaigners, Labour, The Sun – Cameron has ruled out a review of the policy in the Autumn Statement, which is on 25 November. But there is an alternative. The chair of parliament’s Work & Pensions Select Committee and Labour MP Frank Field has proposed what he calls a “cost neutral” tweak to the tax credit cuts.

How would this alternative work?

Currently, if your income is less than £6,420, you will receive the maximum amount of tax credits. That threshold is called the gross income threshold. Field wants to introduce a second gross income threshold of £13,100 (what you earn if you work 35 hours a week on minimum wage). Those earning a salary between those two thresholds would have their tax credits reduced at a slower rate on whatever they earn above £6,420 up to £13,100. The percentage of what you earn above the basic threshold that is deducted from your tax credits is called the taper rate, and it is currently at 41 per cent. In contrast to this plan, the Tories want to halve the income threshold to £3,850 a year and increase the taper rate to 48 per cent once you hit that threshold, which basically means you lose more tax credits, faster, the more you earn.

When will the tax credit cuts come in?

They will be imposed from April next year, barring a u-turn.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.