Author: David Gordon, Director of the Bristol Poverty Institute
The Labour Government was elected in 2024 on a manifesto which promised to; ’develop an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty’ and ’slash fuel poverty’ and ‘create a world free from poverty on a livable planet’. After the election, Kier Starmer argued that ‘no child should be left hungry, cold or have their future held back’ and Liz Kendall (DWP Minister) said ‘We will turn the tide on rising poverty levels, so that every child no matter where they come from has the best start in life.’
However, the details released in March about the cuts/changes to disability and health benefits show that poverty and inequality will rise over the next four years to help fund increases in military expenditure. The cuts are estimated to reduce the social security budget by £4.5 billion by 2029/30 and 3.2 million families incomes will fall, with an average loss of £1,720 per year.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Impact Assessment estimates that the changes will result in an additional 250,000 people (including 50,000 children) in low income poverty (After Housing Costs) by 2029/30.
The DWP’s poverty baseline model assumes that the previously announced changes in both the Labour and Conservative government’s budgets will be implemented and predicts that child poverty will increase by more than half a million by the end of the decade. The model thus includes the proposed Conservative Government’s changes to the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) which were found to be unlawful by the High Court in January 2025. The WCA changes would have reduced the benefits of over 400,000 disabled people and resulted in an additional 150,000 working aged adults and 50,000 children living in poverty by 2029/30.
Including the proposed Tory WCA changes, which were never going to be implemented by Labour, in the baseline DWP poverty model obscures the scale of the health and disability benefit cuts and their poverty impacts.
The New Economics Foundation (NEA) estimates that the ‘true’ amount of the health and disability benefit cuts is £6.7 billion and this will increase poverty by 340,000 people by 2029/30.
Even before these benefit cuts, the number of poor children (4.5 million) was higher than at any time during the past 30 years.
Almost all the families that lose financially have someone with a disability in their household. Joseph Rowntree Foundation funded research has shown that even before these latest benefit cuts, half of the people receiving the health-related element of Universal Credit (LCWRA) are either unable to heat their home, behind on bills, or have low or very low food security. Similarly, a quarter of working-age adults in a family receiving health-related UC have had to use a foodbank in the last year.
The benefit cuts and budget changes will also result in greater inequality, with the poorest 33% of people seeing their incomes fall by 8%, while the richest 33% do not lose any income on average (see Figure below)
The incomes of poor households (After Housing Costs) will also fall i.e. the poor will become poorer.
The Labour Government is actively working on a child poverty strategy as they promised (I am one of many academic advisors they have consulted). However, poverty was mentioned only once in Rachel Reeves budget speech in October and the health and disability cuts in the Spring Statement will both increase child poverty and reduce the incomes of tens of thousands of children in households where someone is disabled. There will be more poor children and some of the poorest children will become even poorer.
Last month on the 13th March, the BPI attended the Resolve Poverty Conference in Manchester which focused on ‘working locally to end poverty nationally’. The event welcomed nearly 300 people and included sessions on several UK poverty-relevant topics ranging from housing support and infrastructure, to the national Child Poverty Strategy, to the impact and experience of poverty in the UK asylum system. It was an excellent and informative day and inspiring to be in a room with so many people working for a common goal – to end poverty.
Have a look at the agenda for the day then read on for the key points from the four sessions the BPI attended.
Session 1: Keynote – The state of affairs (UK Poverty)
Speakers: Carey Oppenheim (Strategic Project Lead, Nuffield Foundation), Danny Sriskandarajah (Chief Executive, New Economics Foundation)
Key Points:
We need a ‘child poverty lock’ – Carey Oppenheim emphasized the critical need to prioritize children in both local and national policies. She warned that without significant action, 1 in 3 children could be living in poverty by the end of the current government term. She advocated for the abolition of the benefit cap and the two-child benefit cap, whilst also highlighting the necessity of increased funding for early intervention programs like Sure Start (Sure Start has proven effective in reducing health disparities through prevention). She also suggested that we think about a ‘child lock’ – much like the ‘pension lock’ (or ‘triple lock’) which ensures that the state pension keeps up with the cost of living – to sustain a lasting child poverty strategy.
Extractive, shareholder-led economic strategies are detrimental – Danny Sriskandarajah, Chief Executive of the New Economics Foundation, focused on the importance of localizing economic control and experimenting with cooperative models. He criticized the current extractive, shareholder-led economic strategies and suggested that bringing economic control back to localities could foster more sustainable and inclusive growth. Danny highlighted the disconnect between national and local agendas, stressing the need for more devolution to empower local communities. He pointed out that cooperatives have existed in Manchester for 200 years, demonstrating the potential for localized wealth-sharing models.
Not AI or tech, but people – Danny also discussed the concept of a “living income” experiment, exploring how benefits should not punish individuals for being disabled or out of work. He emphasized the opportunities for re-wiring the economy to prioritize people over technology – he said that, therefore, the central question is not how do we bring AI and tech into our state, but how do we bring people back in?
An embedded child poverty strategy is needed – Carey advocated for using the term “social security” rather than “welfare,” emphasizing the need to provide stability and security at an adequate level. She praised Scotland’s efforts in tackling child poverty, noting that Scotland has more power to implement effective policies. Carey argued that national policies should support local initiatives, creating a cohesive strategy to address child poverty that is embedded and not just a tick box exercise.
Well-being over GDP growth – Danny stressed the importance of protecting civil society to safeguard democracy. He highlighted the chronic underfunding of civil society and suggested reframing societal goals around wealth distribution. Danny proposed developing new metrics to measure progress beyond GDP growth – that the government should clearly outline and demonstrate progress on – focusing on distributional impacts and the well-being of communities. He warned that inequality is growing and called for a reset of societal values and for protecting civil society to be at the core of initiatives to ensure it has the resources to thrive, and for us not to sleep walk into a crisis.
An urgent need to address poverty and inequality – Overall, the keynote session underscored the urgent need for systemic changes to address child poverty and economic inequality. The UK is currently a very centralised country, with concentration of wealth in London and the south east – the proposed Heathrow expansion is an example of this. Carey and Danny thus emphasized the importance of local solutions, community-driven approaches, reframing of societal goals to prioritise well-being, and a cohesive strategy that integrates national and local efforts in order to tackle these growing challenges.
Session 2 – Mid-morning Session: Navigating the labyrinth: the impact and experience of poverty in the UK asylum system
Speakers: Jo Walby (Chief Executive, Mustard Tree), Agatha Phiri (Founder, Agatha’s Space and lived experience expert), Fatou Jinadu (Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit), Farid Vahidi (Refugee and Asylum Participatory Action Research), Kate Percival (program coordinator, Caritas), Alimamy Bangura (Growing Rights Instead of Poverty Partnership (GRIPP))
Session Handout: (To be uploaded when available)
Key Points:
A ‘right to work’ needed for asylum seekers – Jo Walby, CEO of Mustard Tree, highlighted the increasing number of asylum seekers facing homelessness, with the percentage of Mustard Tree’s homeless clients in the asylum system rising from 30% to 60%. She described this situation as “political poverty,” emphasizing the extra disadvantages faced by asylum seekers. Jo shared examples of initiatives to make refugees feel welcome, such as creating prayer rooms and providing breakfast. She noted the need for employment opportunities and housing, as many asylum seekers do not want handouts but rather the chance to work and integrate into society. Jo also mentioned the “right to work” pilot by Manchester City Council to encourage local businesses to employ refugees.
16 years without a proper home – Agatha Phiri, founder of Agatha’s Space, shared her personal struggles within the asylum system. She has now lived in the UK for 16 years without a proper home. Agatha received only £5 a day from the asylum system, and nothing through the benefits system. She emphasized the need for action and support for black and minority groups, highlighting the exhaustion of constantly sharing her story without seeing change. Agatha described how she started volunteering for Sawn and eventually founded her organization – Agatha’s Space – to help people from Africa with HIV. Despite her efforts, she remains homeless and faces the challenge of having to raise £10,000 to stay in the UK in 2 years-time.
The 10-year route and hostile environment – Fatou Jinadu, a community organizer with the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, discussed the challenges faced by migrants due to restrictive policies, such as the 10-year immigration route and the hostile environment that limits employment rights and social security. Fatou explained that even if a child is born in the UK (from a migrant parent that hasn’t been naturalised), they do not have the same rights as others, and families are often punished by policies like the NHS surcharge and costs of citizenship. She stressed the importance of supportive action groups and changing the narrative around migration, noting that migrants are often forgotten in broader discussions about poverty and inequality. She said that when other people come to the UK they are referred to as migrants, but when British people go elsewhere they are not considered migrants.
Migrant energy-poverty is also about having enough food to have energy to be self-reliant – Farid from RAPAR highlighted the intertwined layers of poverty, including lack of access to adequate ‘energy’ (in reference to energy-poverty) and cultural-specific foods, which isolates people further. He explained that energy poverty is more than just a lack of access to heating and lighting; it also includes access to food to produce bodily energy and overall well-being. Without adequate energy – for heating, lighting and sustenance / nourishment – it hinders everything they do and integration into society. Farid emphasized the need for targeted education and support to build self-reliance through system literacy, inviting attendees to recognize the cycles of poverty that trap migrants and commit to collective action to dismantle these cycles.
Migrant hotels – segregation and a struggle with the bare minimum – Kate Percival, program coordinator at Caritas, described the dehumanizing conditions in refugee hotels in Manchester (a sentiment echoed in refugee hotels in Glasgow too), where people lack agency in their daily lives and are often referred to by their room numbers – these places feel like prisons, she noted. She shared that some people have live in these hotels for up to two years, experiencing a lack of control over what they eat, wear and launder. One person was not allowed to wash a dirty jacket throughout the whole winter. The money they receive – £5 per day – is not enough to buy two bus tickets, let alone other items or food they may need. Some of the hotels are located in rural areas and the migrants are segregated – especially when the money received is not enough for bus travel. Kate stressed the migrants don’t feel respected and linked-in to their community, and they aren’t given opportunities to feel valuable. She also noted that the privatization of the asylum system has led to significant profits for hotel owners while asylum seekers struggle with the bare minimum.
Disabled disadvantaged and qualified asylum seekers not recognised – Alimamy Bangura, GRIPP leader, discussed the negative impact on asylum seekers and disabled people, emphasizing that disabled individuals face even greater disadvantages within the asylum system. He shared stories of individuals who receive inadequate support, leading to severe mental health issues and even suicide. Alimamy highlighted the importance of allowing asylum seekers to work and contribute to society, noting that many are qualified but their certificates are not recognized. He called for training programs to help asylum seekers utilize their skills.
Overall, the session underscored the urgent need for systemic changes to support asylum seekers, including the right to work, adequate housing, and community integration. The speakers emphasized the importance of local solutions and collective action to address the complex layers of poverty and dehumanization faced by asylum seekers.
Please also have a look at the handout (to be uploaded here when available) which accompanied this session on poverty in the asylum system to find explanations of key terms such as the ‘Asylum Seeker’, ‘Migrant’ and ’The 10-Year Route’.
Session 3 – Mid-afternoon Session: The Future of Local Welfare Provision
Speakers: Vicky Powers (Public Health Practitioner, Derbyshire County Council), Ramzi Suleiman (Policy and Public Affairs Manager, Carers Trust), Arianne Clarke (Network Policy and Research Officer, Trussell), Fahmida Rahman (Senior Policy Officer, Greater London Authority)
Key Points:
Proactive welfare support better than crisis support – Fahmida Rahman from the Greater London Authority opened the session by discussing strategies to maximize local welfare provision and highlighted that the government have put more into crisis support, as a result of shortcomings in welfare support. Millions of pounds in welfare support goes unclaimed each year due to such systemic shortcomings. Fahmida emphasized two necessary work streams: providing crisis support services and proactively sending out advice to eligible households. These measures aim to ensure that those in need are aware of and can access the support available to them.
A successful cash-first scheme – Vicky Powel from Derbyshire County Council shared the success of their cash-first scheme, which partners with the post office to deliver cash payments within 30 minutes. This approach provides a more dignified response to financial crises, allowing individuals to address immediate needs without resorting to food banks. Despite concerns about potential abuse, analysis showed that most people used the service genuinely, with an average of 2 payments per person out of a possible 8 that can be claimed, indicating that the majority of users only sought help in genuine times of need.
What’s needed is a Financial Crisis and Resilience Fund – Arianne Clarke from Trussell discussed the positive impact of cash-first systems on overall finances and wellbeing. She advocated for the establishment of a new government Financial Crisis and Resilience Fund of multi-year, ringfenced funding to provide clear referral pathways and services that offer income maximization and access to affordable credit (including cash-first approaches). Arianne emphasized that financial hardships often have multiple contributing factors, and a comprehensive approach is necessary to help individuals move towards financial resilience. She shared findings from a UK review by Trussell, which found that “over half (53%) of people referred to Trussell food banks had faced a large and unexpected cost that they had difficulty paying in the previous three months” (Source: rebuilding discretionary crisis support in England).
The challenges of unpaid care – Ramzi Suleiman from Carers Trust highlighted the challenges faced by unpaid carers, with 30% living in poverty and many more close to the poverty line. He stressed the importance of wrap-around support to help carers navigate financial crises and other challenges. Ramzi explained that a cash-first approach can provide immediate relief, but it must be accompanied by ongoing support to address the underlying issues that contribute to financial instability.
Proactive support, not reactive support – The speakers collectively emphasized the need for multi-year ringfenced funding and statutory support for local crisis systems. They noted that proactive measures are essential to prevent crises and improve access to support. Fahmida suggested that councils should identify and target households eligible for help using data to proactively reach out to those in need. This approach aims to prevent crises before they escalate, ensuring that individuals do not miss payments or fall into deeper financial hardship.
Councils struggling financially – Vicky highlighted the financial struggles faced by many councils, including Derbyshire, which rely heavily on the Household Support Fund. She warned that without continued funding, councils might have to close essential services. Arianne echoed this concern and advocated again for a statutory fund to support local crisis systems, noting that some local authorities have already advised food banks to prepare for increased demand.
Make the application process easier – The session concluded with a discussion on the importance of improving access to support, telling people what they are entitled to, promoting financial resilience, and reducing the need for crisis intervention. Vicky suggested promoting credit unions and ensuring that local council housing is adequately equipped and furnished. Arianne emphasized the frequency of financial shocks, such as job loss, bereavement, broken white goods, divorce or birth of a child, and the need for cash first schemes to help individuals who find themselves in these circumstances. She also highlighted having an easier mechanism to access multiple types of support – i.e. one application which would result in all the support needed for multiple challenges. Ramzi highlighted the importance of linking different areas of support, such as housing and food, to provide a holistic approach to helping individuals in need. He would like to see a narrative change too – to not portray benefits as a handouts, but as needed assistance.
Speakers: Ashwin Kumar (Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)), Matt Hyde (Lloyds Bank Foundation), Rekha Patel-Harrison (Right to Succeed), Ruth Welford (Barnardo’s). Session chaired by Justin Watson (Good Work With).
Key Points:
69% of children in poverty come from working homes – Ashwin Kumar highlighted the epidemic of low-paid work, noting that 69% of children in poverty come from working homes. He discussed the UK’s productivity problem, which directly impacts wages and contributes to child poverty.
Abolition of the two-child benefit cap – Ruth Welford discussed the disproportionate impact of poverty on children in care, disabled children, and children from minority backgrounds. She stressed the need for government targets to measure progress and advocated for the abolition of the two-child benefit cap. Ruth highlighted the increasing requests for basic necessities like beds (through her work at Barnardo’s), which have quadrupled over the last four years.
Empower and fund communities to decide their priorities – Rekha Patel-Harrison emphasized the importance of community-led initiatives and long-term investment in systems change. She discussed the challenges of securing long-term funding and the need for communities to decide their priorities.
It is essential that civil society campaigns for change – Matt Hyde discussed the role of civil society in reducing poverty, noting that it provides essential services and essential campaigns for change – such campaigns create the space for government action and ensures communities are involved in decision-making. He stressed the importance of public support and accountability in achieving systems change.
Speakers advocated for a holistic approach to support individuals, linking areas such as housing, food, and financial resilience.
——–
Please also have a look at the Conference Bulletin which contains five articles on the following topics –
Author: David Gordon, Director of the Bristol Poverty Institute
The DWP published a Green Paper on the 18th March outlining its proposed changes to the health and disability benefits system and for employment support. The government has launched a consultation to seek views about their proposed changes which will close on 30th June 2025.
The proposed changes included some positive elements, such as a £7 per week increases to Universal Credit, an additional £172 million for the Disabled Facilities Grant over the next 2 years, an additional £1 billion employment, health and skills support package and scrapping the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) by 2028.
Unfortunately, the Green Paper also proposes that largest cuts to disability benefits in UK history (£5 billion by 2030).
The £5 billion ‘savings’ will be made by increasing the disability severity eligibility thresholds required to claim Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and reducing the amount of additional disability-related support for new Universal Credit claimants by almost half (from £97 to £50 per week), freezing the £97 for existing claimants and possibly removing eligibility entirely for young people aged 18-22. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that about 1 million people may lose their PIP benefit entitlement. The reduction in the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) in Universal Credit will reduce the incomes of many of the most severely disabled adults.
People who have a life expectancy of less than 12 months, or
Those waiting for, receiving or recovering from chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or
Pregnant women where there is a serious risk of damage to their health or the health of the baby if they do not stop work-related activity.
People whose disability is scored 15 points on any indicator of Activities of Daily Living (ADL).
Examples, of the severe levels of disability required to claim LCWRA include;
Cannot convey a simple message, such as the presence of a hazard – 15 Points
Cannot raise either arm as if to put something in the top pocket of a coat or jacket – 15 Points
At least once a week, has an involuntary episode of lost or altered consciousness that causes significant reduction in awareness or concentration – 15 Points
Reduced awareness of everyday hazards so that there is a significant risk that they will hurt themselves or others, or damage property or possessions, so that they need supervision most of the time to stay safe – 15 Points
The morality of removing and reducing benefits claimed by severely disabled adults is questionable, particularly given the high and increasing rates of poverty that affect many disabled people and their families.
The most recently available UK poverty statistics, for 2022/23, show that there were 6.2 million people living in low-income poverty (after allowing for housing costs) in families that included a disabled adult or child. Which was 43% of all poor people.
However, the official poverty estimates have been shown to significantly underestimate the poverty of disabled people as they do not make adequate allowances for the known additional costs of disability. The Social Metrics Commission has recalculated the official poverty measure using more realistic estimates for disability costs and found that;
“More than half (8.7 million; 54%) of all people in poverty live in a family that includes a disabled person. Three in ten (31%) of those in poverty are themselves disabled: a total of 4.9 million people.” Measuring Poverty 2024, p9
The poverty data for 2023/24 will be released on the 27th March 2025 and may show that poverty amongst disabled people has continued to increase.
It should be noted that the Social Metrics Commission is run by the Centre for Social Policy – a Conservative Party think tank. Academic estimates of poverty amongst disabled people in the UK could be higher than those produced by the Social Metrics Commission.
To conclude, the Green Paper proposals outline a grim future of increasing poverty and destitution for many disabled people, particularly some severely disabled young people. Low income poverty rates, hunger and food insecurity are already high and increasing amongst disabled people and their families. The proposed £5 billion in benefits cuts will inevitably make this situation worse.
Author: Professor David Gordon (Director of the Bristol Poverty Institute)
At midnight on Sunday 23rd February 2025, USAID (the world’s largest provider of international aid – circa $69 billion) was effectively shut down by the US Government on the direct orders of President Trump. Almost all direct hire staff were placed on administrative leave and notice was given that 1,600 permanent staff would be sacked. A six-week purge of USAID’s work, which ended on 10th March, resulted in 5,200 development programmes being eliminated out of a total of 6,200.
On the 25th February 2025, Kier Starmer announced that the UKAID budget (circa $19 billion) would be reduced in 2027 from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI) to fund an increase in Defence spending. On 28th February, Anneliese Dodds (International Development Minister) resigned arguing that these cuts would “remove food and healthcare from desperate people – deeply harming the UK’s reputation”.
2-3 million child deaths due to a lack of immunisation against vaccine preventable diseases
1 million children per year will not receive treatment for severe Malnutrition
8 million pregnant women would not receive maternal health care
7 million children will not receive medical treatment for Pneumonia and Diarrhoea (the largest cause of death for children under 5)
3 million babies will not receive postnatal care in the two days after birth
71,000-166,000 deaths from Malaria and 12.5-17.9 million more cases
200,000 paralytic Polio cases
127,000 Monkeypox virus cases
A 28-32% global increase in TB and Multi Drug Resistant TB cases
Potentially, 28,000 more cases of Emerging Infectious Diseases, such as Ebola, Marburg, etc.
The huge cuts to USAID will inevitably result in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal targets not being met. On 4th March, the US told the United Nations General Assembly that;
“President Trump also set a clear and overdue course correction on gender and climate ideology, which pervade the SDGs….Put simply, globalist endeavours like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals,‘
We do not yet have robust estimates of the likely effects of the proposed cuts to UKAID. However, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact produced a report on the 26th February, detailing how UK aid is currently spent. The most concerning findings were that:
The UK development budget has seen dramatic reductions since 2020
A substantial share of UK development funding is currently spent within the UK (see Figures 13 & 14 below)
Allocations to longstanding UK country partners have been significantly reduced
The UK’s ability to respond to humanitarian crises has been reduced (see Figure 6 below for context)
Apart from in-donor refugee costs, other government departments now spend less development funding
The Sustainable Development Goals are significantly off-track
International climate finance falls significantly short of developing country needs (see Figure 2 below)
Rising conflict is placing heavy strain on the international humanitarian system
Global finance is now flowing away from developing countries
Figures from the ICAI report on UK aid spending
Conclusions
The USA and UK are dramatically reducing their funding on international aid and abandoning the poorest and most vulnerable people. It was of course not always this way and so I will leave you with some quotes from previous US Presidents about the need to reduce poverty and increase human rights.
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
– Franklin D. Roosevelt (US President 1933-1945)
“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.”
– Franklin D. Roosevelt (US President 1933-1945)
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”
– Dwight Eisenhower (US President 1953 -1961)
“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” — John F. Kennedy (US President 1961-1963)
My own personal view was nicely summarised by Eglantyne Jebb at the launch of Save the Children at the Royal Albert Hall in May 1919 in front of a hostile crowd many of whom considered her to be a traitor for wanting to help German and Austrian children so soon after the end of the World War;
“Surely it is impossible for us, as normal human beings, to watch children starve to death without making an effort to save them.”
Illegalised migrants are often associated with poverty and deregulated labour markets. In this blogpost, I share the experience of one family to show how poverty is created and sustained by, among others, agencies that are supposed to safeguard workers and provide a safety net from destitution. This research was undertaken under the Horizon funded PRIME project that analyses the role of institutions in shaping the conditions and politics of irregularised migrants in Europe.
The context
In 2011, the UK government introduced a deregulatory drive to cut red tape and unleash economic growth (Gov.uk, 2011). This was alongside massive cuts to public spending, decimating local authorities’ ability to support those most in need and suppressing enforcement agencies like the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s capacity to investigate labour market abuses. At the same time, the commitment of successive governments to backing “UK PLC” and creating a so-called ‘bonfire of red tape’ has made it easier than ever to start a business. This has enabled the widespread phenomenon of ‘phoenixing’ (WoRC, 2024). Phoenixing is when a company dissolves having come under scrutiny but quickly re-establishes itself under a new name to continue its exploitative practices. The slashed red tape that allows phoenixing to proliferate denies workers redress or practical access to justice.
Phoenixing is particularly prevalent among care agencies who offer Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) for Health and Care Worker (HCW) visas. HCW visas were introduced in 2021. They tie workers to employers, and if a worker wishes to leave, they must find a new visa sponsor within 60 days or risk deportation. The government sets the cost of applying for a HCW visa at £551 per person for five years. Of the 15 care workers we interviewed for the PRIME Project, the average paid to sponsors was £5000, rising to a maximum of £15,000. Many of the people we met arrived in the UK only to find that the agency who sponsored their visa did not exist, or offered them only a few hours’ work a week, or had phoenixed after having their sponsor licence revoked.
Hameed, a data analyst, entered the UK in 2022 on a Skilled Worker visa with his wife, Ferhat, and their two children. Initially, life in suburban southwest London seemed promising and secure, but in late 2023, Hameed was made redundant. This led to the curtailment of his visa, and despite his best efforts, he was unable to secure another visa sponsor for a new job.
Faced with the loss of their livelihood and legal status, Ferhat, who was a primary school teacher in Pakistan, applied for a HCW visa which would allow her to work as a carer, with Hameed and their two children permitted to stay as her dependents. In early 2024, Ferhat found a care agency who promised immediate employment to sponsor her in an Essex town. The family left London, taking a room in a hotel before finding a house to rent. After paying £600 to her new employer to “release the rota”, Ferhat began working as a carer 16 hours a day for 6 days a week. When she complained about the gruelling schedule, the employer threatened her with deportation.
Ferhat’s health deteriorated under these exploitative conditions, and the family faced further obstacles. They could not register with a GP without proof of address and had to visit A&E for medical attention. Despite a sick note, Ferhat was only allowed two days off by her employer before being forced to return to work. The doctor who saw Ferhat did not raise concerns about labour exploitation. Ferhat’s health continued to deteriorate and after several more weeks of working over 90 hours a week, she collapsed at work. Her employer’s response was to summarily dismiss her. The agency who dismissed her has since phoenixed.
In the three months Ferhat was working as a carer, Hameed managed to secure rented accommodation for the family, began applying for school places for their children, and started to look for data analyst jobs. When Ferhat was dismissed, their landlord issued them with a Section 21 or “no fault eviction” notice. Without a new visa sponsor, the family were unable to find alternative rented accommodation and had to return to a hotel. With every penny of their savings spent, and the 60 days to find a new sponsor elapsed, the Citizens’ Advice Bureau advised them to ask their local authority for help.
The local authority reluctantly agreed to support the family under Section 17 of the Children’s Act which places a statutory duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. Section 17 meets children’s basic needs including food, clothing, and housing irrespective of immigration status. The local authority did not agree to house the family until they sold their last remaining asset – their car – for £300 and had spent that on their hotel room. Despite having no legal right to give immigration advice, the family’s social worker advised them to apply for asylum – support for which is funded by central government, not local government. The family was informed there were no secondary school places available in the local authority for their eldest child and despite a statutory duty to admit children of compulsory school age, the social worker and local authority took no action. Instead, Hameed walked the two miles to the nearest secondary school every day to plead for a place for his son. When his son eventually started school, the social worker did not inform them of the local authority’s duty to make a discretionary payment for school uniform or for travel to and from school, forcing Hameed and Ferhat’s son to start school without uniform and walk four miles each day without a proper coat.
At time of writing the family share a room in a hostel provided by the local authority with vouchers to cover food expenses. Hameed has applied for over 200 jobs as a data analyst hoping that one will sponsor him for a new Skilled Worker Visa. Ferhat has been unable to find an alternative sponsor for a Health and Care Worker visa.
The family’s situation shows the devastating confluence of deregulation, austerity, and a hostile visa regime. The bonfire of red tape allowed the unscrupulous agency to rise and rise again. Austerity has made deep cuts to labour market enforcement agencies and the justice system supposed to protect workers and even deeper cuts to local government. This has left them with minimally resourced social care services desperate to cut costs, cut time, and pass the buck to central government. Finally, the hostile environment and No Recourse to Public Funds prevents many from accessing public services, while a tied visa system prevents those who are exploited from speaking out, knowing that they may pay in deportation. While slashed red tape may unleash growth for care agencies, they are part of a wider system that creates, sustains, and entrenches deep poverty. Ferhat and Hameed’s experiences highlight the need for researchers to not view immigration and other areas of social policy such as work and welfare in isolation and emphasise how different areas of policy come together to create, sustain, and entrench poverty.
On the 25th September 2024 we – the Bristol Poverty Institute (BPI) – hosted our Seedcorn Fund Showcase and brought together a cross-section of the University of Bristol’s research community from all faculties and beyond. The event began with an introduction from Joe Jezewski, the Development Associate for the BPI, who detailed what the BPI do and how the Seedcorn Fund is a key initiative of the BPI’s goal of achieving SDG 1: to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. Joe explained the details of this academic year’s Seedcorn Fund (2024-25) highlighting the key features and eligibility requirements and explained that the fund is now open for new applications (until the 10th April 2025).
The event then moved into the showcase part of the afternoon with Dr. Ed Atkins presenting first on his project entitled ‘Developing a Net-Zero Vulnerability Index for the UK’, which was funded by the BPI Seedcorn Fund in the 2023-24 academic year. Ed, the principal investigator (PI) on this interdisciplinary project, explained that those affected by the transition to net zero in terms of employment would be people currently working in the fossil fuels sector and related positions, as well those working in high emission industries, for example, some manufacturing and building construction businesses. Therefore, the project focused on a way of developing a vulnerability index and ranking system to identify local authorities most at risk of net zero’s economic consequences as jobs transition between now and 2050. The index showed that some local authorities were particularly vulnerable (further details of which will be published by Ed’s project team in due course) and that many of the old industrial areas, still suffering from past de-industrialisation, are still vulnerable. Ed is currently working with civil servants in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business and Trade to influence policy making on a just transition to net zero. He is also planning to implement a ‘heat map’ version of the vulnerability index on the web.
The second project funded by the BPI Seedcorn Fund in the 2023-24 academic year, entitled ‘From Pen to Print: Tracing the Evolution of Poverty Narratives in The Times Over Centuries’, then presented their findings. Dr. Jin Zheng, co-investigator on the project alongside the PI, Dr. Ran Tao, delivered the presentation. The project had impressively analysed The Times newspaper articles from 1875 to 2012 – 18,521 articles in total – having first used Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology to convert the PDF files to editable and readable text. The project team was then able to chart the frequency of certain poverty-relevant terms used within the newspaper articles using ‘topic modelling analysis’ and machine learning. Among the eight different search terms, they found that the term “Workhouse Conditions” was mainly discussed in the 19th century, whereas the term “Unemployment” became prominent during the 20th century. Having also looked at ‘determinants’, the project found that there was an increase in the number of articles containing the term “unemployment” during recession periods. The term “Government Policies” did not vary in frequency (based on analysis between 1918 and 2001) depending on which party was in power – i.e. Labour or Conservative. The next step for the project will be to potentially use AI to fix OCR issues and increase the number of readable articles that can be used in the project. They will also look further into what poverty terms and determinants would be useful to analyse in the future.
Following the presentations, there was a lively Q&A exploring a range of issues including the role of creative industries in areas of deprivation, the potential implications of a new government on devolution, particularly around industrial strategy, and how different forms of media have discussed poverty through time and how this intersected with different historical and pollical factors and the rise of mass media. We also welcomed some questions about our current round of Seedcorn funding, and were pleased to see how many people in the room – from different parts of the University – were interested in applying for funding.
We are really looking forward to seeing how these two projects continue to develop as well as seeing what project ideas will be generated for this year’s round of funding! If you’re interested to apply for BPI Seedcorn Funding then please refer to our funding details page for more information and the call specification. The slides from the project presentations from this event will also be available soon via our event resources page.
