Grayling pleads guilty to hitting the working poor

Tax credit changes mean some families will be better off on benefits, welfare minister admits.

Chris Grayling's startling admission (£) that tax credit changes mean some working families will be better off on benefits is an important moment. The welfare minister has pleaded guilty to the toxic charge that the government is penalising the working poor.

George Osborne's decision to remove tax credits from those who work fewer than 24 hours a week means 212,000 couples with children will lose up to £3,870 a year. Asked by Labour MP Ann Coffey what would happen to a family working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, Grayling revealed that the weekly income of a couple with two children would drop from £330 to £257. That's significantly less than the £271 a week that they would receive on out-of-work benefits. In a letter to Osborne today, the Child Poverty Action Group warns that the policy puts "470,000 children at risk of being plunged into poverty".

Grayling's defence is that the anomaly will be resolved next year when the Universal Credit replaces all benefits and "makes work pay". Indeed, the same family will be £95 better off under that system. But until then, Ed Miliband has a potent attack line for PMQs. In one move, the government has undermined its claim to be on the side of working families, rather than "welfare families".

The government has suggested that couples will be able to increase their hours to retain the working benefit but this only makes it look even more out of touch. As the Resolution Foundation's Vidhya Alakeson noted: "In today's economy part-time workers are likely to find it extremely difficult to negotiate extra hours in any case." There are already 1.35 million people working part-time because they can't find a full-time job, the highest number since comparable records began in 1992.

Whether or not the Lib Dems secure a significant increase in the personal allowance, this policy will do nothing for those part-time workers who don't earn enough to pay tax. Now, to add insult to injury, the government is clawing back £73-a-week from their families. This may or may not be the long-awaited "10p tax moment". But the creation of a disincentive to work means the government is now failing even on its own terms.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

There are two sides to the Muslim segregation story

White families must also be prepared to have Muslim neighbours. 

Dame Louise Casey finally published her review on social integration in Britain. Although it mentions all communities, there is a clear focus on Muslim communities. However, the issues she raises - religious conservatism, segregation in some areas and Muslim women experiencing inequalities -  are not new. In this case, they have been placed in one report and discussed in the context of hindering integration. If we are truly committed to addressing these issues, though, we have a duty of care to discuss the findings with nuance, not take them out of context, as some tabloids have already done.

The review, for example, highlights that in some areas Muslims make up 85 per cent of the local population. This should not be interpreted to mean that Muslims are choosing to isolate themselves and not integrate. For a start, the review makes it clear that there are also certain areas in Britain that are predominantly Sikh, Hindu or Jewish.

Secondly, when migrants arrive in the UK, it is not unreasonable for them to gravitate towards people from similar cultural and faith backgrounds.  Later, they may choose to remain in these same areas due to convenience, such as being able to buy their own food, accessing their place of worship or being near elderly relatives.

However, very little, if any, attention is given to the role played by white families in creating segregated communities. These families moved out of such areas after the arrival of ethnic minorities. This isn't necessarily due to racism, but because such families are able to afford to move up the housing ladder. And when they do move, perhaps they feel more comfortable living with people of a similar background to themselves. Again, this is understandable, but it highlights that segregation is a two-way street. Such a phenomenon cannot be prevented or reversed unless white families are also willing to have Muslim neighbours. Is the government also prepared to have these difficult conversations?

Casey also mentions inequalities that are holding some Muslim women back, inequalities driven by misogyny, cultural abuses, not being able to speak English and the high numbers of Muslim women who are economically inactive. It’s true that the English language is a strong enabler of integration. It can help women engage better with their children, have access to services and the jobs market, and be better informed about their rights.

Nevertheless, we should remember that first-generation Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, who could not speak English, have proved perfectly able to bring up children now employed in a vast range of professions including politics, medicine, and the law. The cultural abuses mentioned in the review such as forced marriage, honour-based violence and female genital mutilation, are already being tackled by government. It would be more valuable to see the government challenge the hate crimes and discrimination regularly faced by Muslim women when trying to access public services and the jobs market. 

The review recommends an "Oath of Integration with British Values and Society" for immigrants on arrival. This raises the perennial question of what "British Values" are. The Casey review uses the list from the government’s counter-extremism strategy. In reality, the vast majority of individuals, regardless of faith or ethnic background, would agree to sign up to them.  The key challenge for any integration strategy is to persuade all groups to practice these values every day, rather than just getting immigrants to read them out once. 

Shaista Gohir is the chair of Muslim Women's Network UK, and Sophie Garner is the general secretary and a barrister.