The Secret Cuts: Part Three, The Bedroom Tax

Continuing their series on the Coalition's secret cuts, Alan White and Kate Belgrave find out how the introduction of the "bedroom tax" is affecting people's lives.

This post is about the bedroom tax and the fight against it in different parts of the country. It features tenants who are battling the tax in Merseyside and Manchester. Kate spent several weeks in the north-west talking to people in March before the tax was introduced and then again last week, to see how they’d dealt with it since its April implementation.

It is a tax: cruel and absurd in equal parts, as you’ll see. Forget Iain Duncan Smith’s deceitful claims about “under-occupancy” and “fairness” - this sort of thing: on the Andrew Marr Show in March he said: "We have in social sector housing a very large number of people in houses where they have many more bedrooms than they actually need. Meanwhile, there are a quarter of a million people in overcrowding and a million people on the waiting list trying to get into housing."

As far as Smith was concerned, that justified forcing social housing tenants to pay 14 per cent more a week for one "spare" room, and 25 per cent for two or more – or telling them to downsize into smaller properties (properties that are few and far between: False Economy data from 107 local authorities shows that 86,000 households have been forced to look for one-bedroom homes, of which only 33,000 have become available in the past year). Non-payment rates are very high. In May, the Independent reported a major increase in the number of people applying for discretionary housing payments to help cover rents. So much for Duncan Smith’s big idea.

There’s only one conclusion you can reach here. This is not about savings, or Smith’s peculiar housing redistribution fantasy, or addressing the housing shortage (only building more homes will do that). This is an all-out attack on social housing tenants and on the notion of social housing - the idea that everybody (even people who aren’t well-off) should have decent housing. It’s an assault on a group of people who have been abandoned by mainstream politics. It’s an attack on people who who are castigated for needing any state support at all.

(And in case you’re wondering how IDS lives as he imposes this tax - here’s a video of his weekend place taken during a recent UK Uncut/Disabled People Against Cuts occupation to protest the bedroom tax.)

*

You only need five minutes at the Friary centre in West Everton to understand why people who live in social housing here are nervous about the tax and their future as social housing tenants. They are surely sitting on prime real estate. The whole place screams Location. Liverpool city centre is only 20 minutes' walk away. Homes face a very large piece of grass which would easily house swanky cafes. It looks a developer’s dream. The two women who spend the morning talking to the NS - both local social housing tenants - certainly think so. They are clear on the reasons why the Haves would want them out and where the bedroom tax could ultimately land them.

“It's prime land – it's right on top of the city centre,” Ann Roach, community development worker for families on the West Everton community council, says. “The [tax means that] housing associations will end up with all these four-bedroom places, because they were “underoccupied”. Now them kids are getting moved out (because of the tax). The flats will get knocked down and it'll be apartments here and apartments there. People used to come over and say “Wow, it's beautiful where you live” and I'd say, “It won't be for long. It's too nice to be ours.”

Roach and Jill are long-time social housing tenants. They are not quite of state pension age. Jill is affected by the bedroom tax and Roach worries that she’ll have housing problems if she ever loses her job. She does not expect to find another job at her age.

We don’t give Jill’s full name because like many, she’s worried that her housing association (HA) will target her if she makes her opposition to the tax known. It’s easy to see why people have this concern. HAs are pursuing the money hard. At least one Liverpool HA was doorstepping people for the money a mere month after the tax was introduced - and asking for the names of tenants we were speaking to about the tax. That HA was at pains to say it only wanted the names so it could “help” people who were struggling - but tenants don't trust that. Why, as tenants regularly say, would they trust the same organisations that are sending them payment demands?

The other concern people have is that social services will remove children from parents who are found to be struggling due to the extra cost. People say this a lot. “Nobody wants social services butting their noses into people's business, because it's a danger game when a mother hasn't got enough money to feed her kids properly,” Jill says. “She's going to starve herself to make sure her kids are fed. You're hearing about kids being taken away when they shouldn't be.”

Jill has to deal with the bedroom tax herself and she’s finding it difficult. She's older, not in good health and she’s on a disability benefit. Her husband is also unwell. She’s furious that they must pay the bedroom tax on a bedroom “that's seven foot by nine foot - they're calling that a bedroom.” She thinks of her house as “a two-bedroom house with a boxroom as a storage area.”

She and her husband are older people who should be relaxing into later life, not desperately trying to find a few extra quid a week to stay housed. “I had my kids in that house. I've been 28 years in that place.” She adds: “I can see my daughter's front window just out of my back just over that door, so there's a house between us. She can wave to me from her back garden and that's how it should be. That's the old way. That was the way that we were brought up.”

That’s a problem here. The Government has moved the goalposts for these people in a sadistic way. These women were housed at a time when the agreement was that you got your home for life as long as you looked after it. Which is what they did. They fought for that housing. Roach brings out pictures of the slums that people once lived in here:.

You can see the crumbling walls and doors, rubbish and masonry strewn across streets, wet washing hanging along damp walls. Local people campaigned for improvements – and won them. “We always had to to fight for everything,” Roach says. “The one thing that I thought was safe for my kids was the fight for these houses. I thought my kids won't have to fight, because I've got somewhere safe for them.”

Which brings us to our next point. This tax targets people who know how to fight for improvements and rights as a community - older people like Roach and Jill, who campaigned for better housing and now work in a community centre that runs bedroom tax surgeries and provides hot meals for people who can’t afford them. Many of the people at the largely tenant-led bedroom tax meetings across Merseyside are middle-aged or older. They've been in the same homes for many years and have so-called “spare” rooms because their circumstances have changed (often their kids have grown up and left). Because they’ve been around for a while, they have networks in their neighbourhoods, contacts and a lot of experience in seeing off threats. You can see exactly why politicians of all stripes would want to target them with a bedroom tax and break them up.

They’re fighting the tax. They’re appealing bedroom sizes and either paying nothing, or paying a small amount off the top of the tax. As housing consultant Joe Halewood says in the video below of a recent Garston-Speke tenants’ meeting: “Housing associations are shitting themselves at the levels of non-payment.” Many people can’t afford to pay. As Halewood also says, pushing housing associations and councils is the only option tenants have. He also makes an interesting point about the devastating impact that the national introduction of the overall benefit cap will have.

John, an unemployed 56-year-old man to whom Kate has been talking for several months, says that has hasn't paid anything yet. He's putting any money he can find aside each week so that he can say he's made an attempt to find the money if and when he’s asked for it. A woman called Sal is in appeal and is paying a small sum off each week. Sean, who has been in his house for 25 years and has two “spare” bedrooms is also in appeal. Edie “didn’t pay anything” for some time and then started paying £10 a week. She has one “spare” room, which she needs because “I have my grandson with me (he’s eight). He was in care and he clings towards me. So he’s there.”

So people fight it. No one else will (these videos by activist and artist Tracey Dunn show Dingle bedroom tax protestors marching on the town hall earlier this year). The Labour party's abject failure to fight the tax and pledge to overturn it is a major topic at meetings and in discussions with tenants. People want no-eviction and no-collection policies, as well they should. “Where are the councillors?” was an angry refrain at tenants’ meetings in March. “I don’t hold out any hopes for the Labour party whatsoever. These are the buggers that introduced the Welfare Reform Act for Christ’s sake,” said Speke tenant Jo during a long interview last week. We asked Liverpool, Salford and Manchester councils for comment on bedroom tax evictions policies. Manchester said: “it is unlikely any council will be able to follow through with an idea of a no-eviction policy.” The others have yet to respond). Unite community organiser Sheila Coleman was clear about the fallout for Labour on its lacklustre response. In this video, she tells tenants that “the value of a union involvement in this is not to go along with it, but to say to people running the unions - stop funding Labour MPs. Stop funding them.”

This is a tenant-led movement. All political groups need to note this.

*

In other cases the “one-size-fits-all” nature of the policy is inappropriate to the point of absurdity.

This is a video of Tria Hall, a disabled woman and anti-bedroom tax activist in Manchester who, like other disabled tenants in her new block, was moved into a two-bedroom flat from a one-bedroom flat not long before the tax was implemented. Here, she shows us around her flat.

Tria has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome - a degenerative condition. She was moved into this new adapted flat because the new flat is adapted for someone with a disability. It has a wet room with handrails. Plug sockets and light switches are at wheelchair height.

Tria had to wait for several years for the flat to be built. Kate first met her in her old flat in 2010. It was a freezing place, with ill-fitting doors and windows that let in the winter air. Tria was pleased to move and had looked forward to it – and then, about six months in, found out that the bedroom tax was coming her way. “We never asked for two-bedroom flats. They just moved us in.” In the video you’ll see her explaining why the Government’s “answer” to the problem - take in a lodger - simply won't work for her. Just after we spoke to her, she was awarded a discretionary housing payment.

You find a lot of people who were moved to their flat for a reason. Sometimes, that “reason” was to save the state money. Take Jo. She lives in Speke in a two-bedroom housing association flat. She's been there for about 13 years. She was moved there so she could care for her elderly mother who lives nearby.

She goes to her mother's house about three times a day: “I’m like the on-site janitor - if the electricity goes off, I’m the one that’s on call...I’ll cook if she wants anything cooking, I’ll push the hoover round, whatever she needs doing.” She has saved the state thousands of pounds in carers’ fees. But now she tells us:  “[The bedroom tax] is how I’m served for doing that...They don’t care where you find [that money]. They don’t care if you’re on the bones of your arse.”

Despite all the work she does for her mother, Jo is disabled herself. She had no idea how she'd manage to pay for that “spare” bedroom out of her small benefit. Her housing association had phoned her and asked if she wanted to take in a lodger, but as in Tria Hall’s case, she had health reasons for not wanting that.

Jo says she was “so desperate” to find money to pay the bedroom tax that she decided to apply to Liverpool City Council for a discretionary housing payment. To her relief, she was awarded one - about £11 a week which is paid directly to her housing association. She thinks that she was awarded that money because she is caring for her mother. That DHP payment will last for just for six months, though, and three of those months have already gone.

In May, officers of Jo’s housing association (accompanied, for dubious reasons, by a Police Community Support Officer), called at her house, and dropped this letter through her letterbox. Digest its implications for a moment.

Kate phoned the housing association - South Liverpool Homes - about this at the time. A spokesman told her the Pay Your Bedroom Tax Now letter-drop merely coincided with a regular community meet-and-greet exercise that SLH calls “Walkabout Wednesdays.” As Kate wrote in May:

That's one interpretation of last week's event. Another interpretation – it's certainly one that went through the minds of our tenant contacts (and our minds, for that matter) -  is that tenants are being doorstepped for this bedroom tax money, a mere month after the tax was introduced.

According to a letter Jo received from the council, she'll have to “make alternative arrangements” to pay her bedroom tax and council tax shortfalls when her DHP runs out, or - “find cheaper accommodation.” Jo is not sure what that means. She assumes that her circumstances won't change in six months. She'll still need to be near her mother, to care for her.

*

People also see their houses as homes. As well they might.

This is a picture of the letter that campaigner Maria Brabiner’s mother was sent when she finally secured her council house, into which her family moved in October 1978, when Maria was just 13.

It was a joyous moment. Before then, Maria’s family had lived in squalid conditions - Maria, her mother and brother shared a single, damp room with no electrics in Higher Broughton. Years later, in 2005, Maria gave up her job to become a full-time carer for now-elderly mother. She’d worked all her life and had savings to live on while caring. Maria’s mother died in 2010, so she was able to get back to paid work.

She tells us:

The first I’d heard about [the bedroom tax] was when it got its royal assent about 12 months ago. And it still didn’t sink in - I thought, well I’m bound to get a job. I wasn’t claiming job seekers’ allowance, I was still living off my savings, because the carer’s allowance didn’t pay for National Insurance contributions, so I wasn’t entitled to anything. I thought I’d been out of work for 12 months, but I’d be bound to get a job in another 12 months.

Despite a good history in office work, she’s been unable to find employment. Her savings have gone. All she has left is the house she’s lived in most of her life and the support of the people in her community, many of whom she’s known for decades.

But she’s fighting the tax. She’s been much in the press and organises meetings for people who are affected. Kate attended one of the meetings she organised in Broughton in June. It was a good meeting - but it was telling that the Salford councillors who were invited did not show up. Here are tenants and activists holding up “Wish You Were Here” signs for them:

Attendees were furious - there was much discussion about Labour talking, but not acting - but they were pleased about a triumph that campaigners had the day before. They'd managed to stop an eviction at the Manchester courts by turning up in numbers to protest.

“That's the only way we'll defeat it,” campaigner Ron Senchak told the meeting. Senchak had represented the woman who'd been facing eviction as she wasn't eligible for legal aid. “We have to do it ourselves. We can’t rely on politicians.”

Maria's is one in a sea of similar stories. The Samaritans have been ­training housing workers to cope with tenants left ­suicidal by the Bedroom Tax, after being approached by Riverside Housing Association on Merseyside after a spike in callers at the end of their tethers. Last month, the first suicide was directly connected to the reform, and this month we heard of another attempt.

If it looks like a tax and smells like a tax, it’s a tax and it’s hitting the poorest hardest. People face homelessness all over. Wonder if IDS and the inlaws take lodgers in that nice place of theirs.

Some tenants’ names have been changed or withheld

You can read more articles from Alan White and Kate Belgrave's Secret Cuts series here

Many social housing tenants in Merseyside and Manchester are struggling since the introduction of the bedroom tax. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Aid in whose interest?

The government appears to be raiding the aid budget to subsidise big business and the security state.

In March 1988, Scottish aristocrat and Defence Minister to Margaret Thatcher, George Younger visited was part of a controversial offer of £200m of the UK aid budget in exchange for Malaysia signing a £1bn arms deal.

The government promised public money to subsidise UK construction giant Balfour Beatty to build a hydroelectric dam named Pergau in Malaysia’s mountainous north east.

Malaysia’s national utility, the World Bank and auditors at the Overseas Development Administration, the UK aid ministry, questioned the human development value of the project for the middle-income country, finding its costs to be “markedly uneconomic" compared to other options then available.

But these warnings were summarily dismissed.

Thatcher, who I believe saw aid not as a vehicle for eradicating poverty but as a means to advance Britain's commercial and geostrategic interests, wanted the arms deal.

In Malaysia, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad wanted an infrastructure project in Kelantan state, which was held by a rival party, which he wanted to wrest votes from.

But the National Audit Office soon got wind of the deal and parliamentary committees started to ask awkward questions of those involved.

The press published dozens of articles and the Pergau scandal was born.

Newspapers soon unearthed other white elephant development  projects resulting from the tying of aid to private British interests that did little for reducing poverty but were a boon for the contractors involved.

The Permanent Secretary to the ODA (Overseas Development Administration, now Dfid – the Department for International Development), Tim Lankester, said that Pergau was “unequivocally a bad buy”, “an abuse of the aid system” and “not a sound development project”.

The World Development Movement (renamed Global Justice Now) won a judicial review in 1994 against the government in the High Court which ruled the payment of aid “for unsound development purposes” illegal.

The Tories reacted, not by untying aid from UK vested interests, but by slashing the aid budget as punishment for the bad press – it seems that Thatcher saw little use for aid that could not be used to subsidise private interests.

Labour came to power in 1997 with an agenda to reform how Britain did development. It established a better-funded and politically-stronger aid department, the Department for International Development (DFID), with a seat in cabinet.

It scrapped the Aid and Trade Provision, the official mechanism by which aid was used to subsidise British company contracts, and in 2001 untied aid from UK commercial interests. The International Development Act of 2002 for the first time legally committed the UK to spending aid only on poverty reduction.

But since the Conservatives won a clear majority in last year’s general election, the government has been wilfully unlearning the lessons of Pergau.

Out of the hobbling coalition with the Liberal Democrats, Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne have unpicked Labour’s reforms by effectively retying aid to the interests of the private sector and its perceived security interests.

They appear to have deprioritised poverty reduction as the principal purpose of the aid budget. “There is a real risk of the budget being recaptured by commercial interests as it was in the 1980s,” Sir Tim Lankester told me recently. “[International Development Secretary] Justine Greening has been making sure British commercial interests get more and more of the cake.

“What’s remarkable these days is the huge contracts going to the big consultancies to advise government and manage projects – The Adam Smith Internationals. The Crown Agents and others.”

November’s aid strategy “tackling global challenges in the national interest”, written largely by the Treasury rather than by Dfid, announced that aid would be a tool to “strengthen UK trade and investment opportunities around the world”.

The retying of aid spend is sold in the strategy in the same way the Conservatives sell austerity and privatisation at home.

Using the language of “prosperity” and “economic opportunity” (“inequality” was not mentioned once in the 22-page document), the government spins the dubious argument that communities in the world’s poorest nations share the interests of both UK business and the UK security state.

This “what’s good for us is good for you” aid strategy’s promotion of the UK interest over those of the poor grossly undermines the government’s legal duty under the International Development Act.

The aid strategy leaves it to the concurrently published National Security Strategy to enumerate what these imaginative interests are: to “protect our people”, to “project our global influence” and to “promote our prosperity”.

To achieve these ends, the government has allotted half of the aid budget to conflict-hit states, which are expected to be the states Britain has helped destabilise in recent years: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya Syria and Yemen.

The government also successfully lobbied the OECD to widen the official definition of “Official Development Assistance” (aid) to include military spend on counter-terrorism and expand the use of aid subsidies for private – and inevitably British – projects in the developing world.

Over the course of this Parliament, the Tories will triple to around £5bn the amount of aid to be spent outside of Dfid. The main beneficiaries of this diversion of aid are the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the foreign office (FCO) and the business department (BIS). These departments are considerably less transparent than Dfid and, according to the National Audit office, spend most of their aid on middle income countries, rather than low-income countries.

This slide towards using aid to subsidise British business and as a slush fund top up its military and security budgets means that development projects devoted to public health, education and countering the agricultural and ecological destruction wrought by climate change, will suffer.

***

Take the growing spend by Dfid on private consultants and accountancy firms.

Under the Tory austerity programme Dfid’s staff has been slashed, which means there is less public capacity to allocate, monitor aid projects.

To compensate for this under capacity the government has farmed out the aid budget in bigger and bigger parcels to private contractors and accountancy firms to do the work for a profit.

Dfid spends some £1.4bn directly through private contractors and several times more than that through its payments to multilateral development banks that recycle British aid back through the private sector.

In 2014, Dfid said 90 per cent of its contracts are awarded to British companies, strange for a department that claims to have untied aid. Almost no contracts are signed directly with NGOs or contractors in the Global South.

In 2014 alone, it spent £90m through a single private consultancy, Adam Smith International (ASI), which that year declared £14m in profits, a profit that doubled in two years on the back of Dfid and British taxpayers.

ASI, which was spun off from the neoliberal think tank Adam Smith Institute, is in the business of privatising public works in the Global South from Nigeria to Afghanistan and deregulating the Nigerian economy under its “Business Environment” stream of Dfid’s £180m Growth and Empowerment in States scheme.

In 2014, Dfid spent £42.9m on the services of one accountancy firm alone (PwC), in spite of its part in the LuxLeaks tax avoidance scandal. It is this tacitly sanctioned flight of wealth that costs poor nations (non-OECD) three times more each year in tax avoidance to tax havens than they receive in aid from rich nations (OECD) according to the OECD itself.

Contrary to the public perception, aid is for the most part not “given” to poor countries. At present, only 0.2 per cent of the world’s humanitarian aid goes directly to local and national non-government agencies and civil society organisations. This is despite a consensus that these groups are the most effective engines for development.

The increasing use of private contractors and large bilateral financial institutions to get aid out of the door constitutes nothing less than a capture of the aid budget by corporate interests, which also advise the government on where to direct future aid flows.

Under this government, aid has become less a tool for development but a rent for a veritable industry that concentrates the knowledge, skills and finance in the companies and institutions of rich nations.

***

Take the amount of British aid that subsidises the fossil fuel industry and therefore promotes global warming, which affects the poor considerably more than the rich because they lack the resources to adapt.

The effects of climate change are already biting. The rising frequency of drought on the world’s semi-arid regions of the world, including the Middle East constitutes, to borrow a term from Professor Rob Nixon, a “slow violence” enacted by industrialised nations on the poor.

Our refusal to take commensurate action on climate change means that water stress is rising across the world, which impairs development and has even been linked to conflict in Nigeria and Syria.

In April, I visited Somaliland, which is experiencing the worst drought in living memory along with the rest of east and southern Africa. Agriculture has collapsed, the animals are dying and migration is rising fast.

Many of these climate refugees are washing up on the shores of Italy and Greece. Survivors in are being sent back to Turkey because there is no international protection available to a subsistence farmer without water or a parent who cannot afford to feed their children.

In 2009, the UK pledged at the G20 to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies but instead it has been using public funds to increase them, according to the Overseas Development Institute.

Using aid money to give the fossil fuel industry a leg up and imperil us all to the onslaught of global warming entrenches inequality and hampers sustainable development.

***

Last year the EU signed a €1.8bn aid package with the governments of 20 African nations, including Eritrea, a totalitarian state financed by slave labour, to keep Eritreans in their country and to accept planes filled with their citizens who are denied asylum in Europe.

Clearly, this aid money is being spent principally the interests of the donors and not the world’s poor.

But aside from using aid to forcibly return people at risk of human rights abuses, this aid holds development back in other ways. Migration is the biggest driver of development because economic migrants from poor countries who work in rich countries back remittances that amount to three times the international aid spend.

“Migrants are the original agents of development,” William Lacy Swing, director of the International Organization for Migration, told the World Humanitarian Summit in May.

In effect we are spending public money legally allocated for reducing poverty on keeping the world’s poor mired in it.

***

Take the UK’s “preventing violent extremism” agenda – borrowed, of course, from the Americans – under whose banner projects can be now funded with UK aid.

Britain’s successful lobbying of the OECD – in opposition to other large donor states, including Sweden – to include some counter-terrorism military spend in the definition of aid is of deep concern.

The OECD already allowed for the provision of aid to prevent conflict and promote peace but this new extremist lens, as opposed to the purely conflict lens, allows the aid spend to become politicised.

After all, governments across the world call their political enemies “extremists” or “terrorists”, but the term is rarely ascribed to governments themselves, even when they brutalise their populations.

The government seems ready to exploit to this change, having set up its new £1bn aid-funded Conflict Stability and Security Fund (rising to £1.3bn in 2020), of which 90p of every pound is spent by the FCO and the MoD.

The stage has been set for Britain’s security state to raid the aid budget to pursue the ill-conceived and expensive military strategy du jour.

The government’s agenda to spend aid in conflict-hit and fragile states on counter-terrorism projects has a bad precedent. The US development agency USAID spent billions in post-2001 Afghanistan, which was embezzled or spirited out of the country.

Even worse, the aid was destabilising. “Instead of rescuing the [political] transition process, aid contributed to its failings,” said the NGO Saferworld in a report this year on the lessons learned from the American state-building strategy in Afghanistan. “Large aid volumes overwhelmed local absorptive capacity and sustained a rentier state . . . The influx of aid funds and the competition over the illegal economy strengthened predatory and opportunistic elites that the US and its allies tried to reform.”

The British government risks falling into the American trap of using counter-terrorism aid to remake conflict-hit fragile states into democracies.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the government’s own aid watchdog, has criticized the government’s failure to learn lessons from the past, adding that its security initiatives are “naïve” and perform “poorly” in terms of both effectiveness and value for money.

***

In another dangerous case of aid not being used in the interests of development, the Tories are using it to establish private healthcare and education across the Global South.

Publically provided, free and universal health and education of the type we enjoy in Britain should be pursued across the Global South because it reduces inequality and strengthens democratic accountability.

Private provision of these services in the words of turns these basic needs into commodities whose price variable and unaffordable to poor and marginalised sections of society.

In Britain we should be internationalising the principle of free-at-the-point-of-use health and education, a privilege hard fought for by a generation of Labour politicians interested in social justice and the condition of the poor.

Instead, Dfid’s Education Position Paper calls for “developing new partnerships across the public-private spectrum” and commits Dfid to promoting low-cost private schools “in at least four countries”.

Its flagship education programme of the Department of International Development, in partnership with Coca Cola and PwC, is the £355m Girl’s Education Challenge, which rolls out private education across 18 countries, including 15 African nations.

In signing up to last year’s Sustainable Development Goals last year, Britain committed to “achieve universal health coverage”, which is directly undermined by a development agenda which favours fees.

***

The privatisation of our aid budget alongside its entrapment by enormous multilateral financial institutions is symptomatic of the wider erosion neoliberalism is enacting on the British – and global – economy.

In 2016, aid should be about empowering the losers of neoliberalism across the Global South to cut poverty and reduce inequality. This means placing more emphasis on working directly with the poor, colonised and, more-often, the women of the Global South.

Aid should not be spent on the five and often six figure salaries of the global financial elite, nor should it be tied to Britain’s commercial interests to provide public subsidy for private interests. If we wish to subsidise our private sector, that’s fine, but should do it using export credit and not disguise it as aid.

I can already hear the outcry from development experts that spending money at the grassroots is harder to track and the shrill headlines that taxpayers’ money is being wasted on bee-keepers in Kyrgyzstan or on a Somali radio drama that gave tips to illegal immigrants (all real headlines from the Murdoch press).

But I would accept more “waste” by employing more Dfid civil servants to monitor a greater number of smaller grassroots aid projects on a trial-and-error basis than I would accept the other now ubiquitous form of waste that we do not call waste: the subsidising poverty barons, who enrich themselves off the aid ‘industry’.

This is not a particularly radical agenda. Aid under Labour’s Clare Short, Dfid’s first head, targeted the grassroots and there is a growing consensus among the establishment that we must return to this model to make development more effective and give poor people ownership over projects rather than imposing them from above.

More power and capital needs to go into the hands of grassroots groups.

We must recall the lessons of Pergau and redesign our aid system so that it is not captured by industry or distant elites for their own profitability but a means by which the poor can bring about transformative social change for themselves. 

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and shadow secretary of state for international development.