How much do we need to get by today?

WHEN Seebohm Rowntree published his 1901 study into poverty in York, it was one of the seminal works of its day.

His argument that poverty was a direct result of low wages may seem obvious now, but at the time it contradicted the common view – that poor people were responsible for their own situation.

Now, more than a century on, York researchers have undertaken another landmark study into low pay and low living standards.

While it may not prove as influential as Seebohm Rowntree’s Study Of Town Life, the work aims to start the debate that could ultimately lead to better conditions for the worst off nationwide.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, of the University of York, are among the authors of the new report, entitled A Minimum Income Standard For Britain: What People Think.

It is based on the public’s own views and comments, and states that £13,400 is the watermark figure that each person living in Britain today needs to earn to have an “acceptable” living standard.

The report, which is published today, is the culmination of lengthy research, which included discussions with 39 groups from different types of households.

Experts asked them about their own budgets, and studied them to make sure they provided an adequate diet and met basic needs.

The £13,400 figure, which is pre-tax, is seen by the report’s authors as the bare minimum to provide a “basic but acceptable” standard of living.

Researchers say a single person with no children needs to spend £158 a week, not including rent or mortgage. A couple with two children, they say, would need to spend £370 a week.

To afford that on top of rent on a modest council home, the single person would need £13,400 a year, while the couple would need £26,800.

For families with no adult working, state benefits provide less than half the minimum budget for single people and about two-thirds for those with children. The basic state pension provides three-quarters of the minimum, but the Pension Credit tops that up to just above the minimum.

Prof Bradshaw says the study is helpful in putting precise figures on an often-vague issue.

“Until now, poverty assessments have been largely based on rather arbitrary measures of relative income, which are helpful for monitoring trends but leave unanswered the question of how much income is enough.

“Based on these public assessments, almost everyone defined as living below the official poverty line falls short of what people judge to be adequate for their fellow citizens.”

Participants in the study were clear that minimum standards should provide for more than mere survival. One elderly woman told researchers: “Food and shelter keeps you alive. It doesn’t make you live.”

Julie Unwin, director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said: “This research is designed to encourage debate, and to start building a public consensus about what level of income no one should have to live below.

“Of course, everyone has their own view about what items in a family budget are ‘essential’. But this is the best effort to date to enable ordinary people to discuss and agree what all households should be able to afford.

“Naturally, people’s circumstances and preferences vary, and this research does not dictate how people should spend their money. But it does start to pin down how much people this is needed to be able to afford basic opportunities and choices that allow proper participation in society.”

The study coincides with a resolution by City of York Council, which on Monday unanimously called on the Government to do more to tackle child poverty.

Speaking at that meeting, Green councillor Dave Taylor said: “The Joseph Rowntree Foundation did a study of poverty a few years ago to mark the centenary of the Seebohm Rowntree study into poverty at Hungate.

“One of the key findings then was that nothing had changed – the same number of people were in poverty, and even the same names were cropping up.”

Would life be better in Canada?

ANYONE feeling dissatisfied with the quality of life in Britain might consider emigrating to Canada.

Canada hopes to cash in on Britain’s struggling economy by enticing disenchanted workers with promises of a lower cost of living and better education and health care. Those with specific skills are being offered a fast track to immigration visas, which means many eager Brits could be heading for distant shores.

Last year, 200,000 Britons moved abroad and 37 per cent of adults in a recent survey by youGov said they were considering a move abroad.

The Canadian province of Alberta has sent Hector Goudreau, its employment minister, to Britain in order to recruit teachers, GPs, nurses, electricians and construction workers.

Mr Goudreau said: “The cost of living is considerably less than in the UK. Our salaries are comparable or even higher, so anyone who moves over would be able to make money and set some aside.”

However, some fear that a migration of doctors and nurses abroad could exacerbate problems within the already struggling NHS. Hospitals and clinics are already understaffed, with teachers and other skilled workers also in short supply. It has also been suggested that Canada’s flourishing economy is based primarily on its oil reserves, something that is guaranteed to decline in the long term.

But with 260,000 migrants entering Canada every year, many people appear to feel the benefits of leaving outweigh the risks. - Charlotte Chester