|
The bones of a more concerted and focused onslaught
on inequality lie all around us. Much to the credit of this
government, policies are in place and are beginning to work.
But not enough is being done yet and not enough is being
planned. The hill of inequality is steep and may even be
getting steeper. It means the Government, the party, its
supporters and the academic/intellectual community needs
to do more. There needs to be a collective leap of imagination
if equality is to become the leitmotif that runs throughout
this administration, as it should any Labour government.
Crucially, the legacy of a Labour government must be a more
equal society. To leave the nation more divided and less
equal would be a fundamental failure. Even more inexcusable
would be the accusation that we simply failed to try.
Much of what needs to be done has little to do with
policy. It's about culture, leadership and style. The politics
of a 'new egalitarianism' in its widest sense will come
into being not just because we have the right policies,
but because those policies are underpinned by an environment
in which there is the understanding, the will and means
to make them work. The first policy is therefore about communication.
It means an end to redistribution by stealth and a start
to redistribution by consent. What follows is a selection
of policy ideas that could contribute to the second stage
of making our society more equal. Some could be easily achieved,
like a generous graduate support system, others are more
problematic. But with another overwhelming Commons majority
we should start to push just a bit. What follows is not
an exhaustive list, but examples of what could be done.
Minimum Income Standards
Since 1997 the government has established, or is in the
process of establishing, a patchwork of benefits, tax credits
and assets. Many, if not all, are laudable. But there is
a sum and parts issue. It remains a patchwork rather than
a coherent attempt to 'guarantee' a minimum safety net through
which no citizen should fall. Recent research endorsed by
the Church of England suggests that families need a minimum
of £200 per week (Guardian 10.7.01). This is different
from the rather separate political project of a 'citizens
income' which has other objectives than alleviating poverty.
A commitment to a Minimum Income Standard would galvanise
now disparate thinking and action, it would give Labour
and its supporters something meaningful to campaign for
and most importantly it would help ensure that no one in
Britain endures unnecessary poverty.
Transport
The poorest people pay more for worse transport options.
In addition they are more likely to be killed or injured
by cars that few of them will ever be able to afford. Poor
access to transport denies job opportunities, availability
of good health care and education and obstructs cultural,
leisure and social well being. Investment in rail, city
trams, integration and car control will all play a part.
But one policy would make a big and quick impact: The re-regulation
of the bus system to ensure that affordable, reliable and
regular buses service poorer communities and rural areas.
Income tax
No one has found a better way of redistributing income,
wealth and ultimately life chances than through the tax
system. Certainly it was the favourite of Mrs Thatcher -
but not in a way we would have approved. o Over 600,000
more children could have been lifted out of income poverty
had the £2.4 billion foregone in cutting the basic
rate of income tax (from April 2000) been used to increase
benefits of the poorest children. The rate could be reversed.
o A 50 per cent rate of income tax levied on income over
£100,000 would raise an additional £3.1 billion
for education, health and transport and would start to address
the upper end of the widening income gap. The abolition
of the ceiling on National Insurance contributions would
also release much needed funds for public spending and serve
our progressive ideals. o If public spending is to keep
pace with the political demands of investment on public
services then the Treasury must increase revenues by £14bn
after 2003, or 4p on the standard rate of income tax.
Hypothecation for health
An 'earmarked' or hypothecated tax for the National Health
Service would: Allow Britain to reach and maintain the European
average for health spending as a proportion of gross domestic
product. Increase transparency in the tax system and ensure
the money wasn't spent elsewhere
Student access
The Government has announced plans to review student finances
as a consequence of the political pressure from Middle England
who felt the pain of paying fees and full maintenance. It
is undoubtedly the case that middle England is being squeezed
but it is working-class children who are being denied opportunity.
There are two options being considered by the review.
Both envisage post-graduation repayments over a 20-25 year
period (a graduate tax). However, one offers maintenance
grants for all, the other would see means-tested grants
for poorer students. The Government should be commended
on this brave decision to review a problem of the their
own making. The universal system of maintenance awards has
huge advantages over the means tested alternative: It would
fully open the doors of academia to all. Worries about paying
for education would come with ability to pay once in work.
And the more you earn the more you pay, thus fulfilling
the progressive principle. Means testing, as we know from
the experience of pensions and other groups, reduces take-up
dramatically. The more complicated the system and the more
students are differentiated once at college, the less working-class
children will go. At the moment if poorer children get to
university, they do less well.
Religion
equal treatment for religious minorities The symbolism
of Tony Blair standing shoulder to shoulder with Muslim
leaders in Downing Street sent a clear signal that the public
should not blame Britain's 1.5 million Muslims for the atrocities
on 11 September. But the verbal abuse and attacks that Muslims
have experienced over the past few weeks are nothing new,
if more extreme. Nor are they the only religious minority
to feel unfairly treated because of their beliefs. Sikhs,
Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Pagans and Baha'is all reported
incidents to recent Home Office research. In contrast to
unfair treatment on grounds of race, gender or disability,
there is no legislation in Britain to make such discrimination
unlawful.
The most effective single step that the Government could
take to reassure religious minorities would be to end that
anomaly. Under duress from Europe, it has indeed agreed
to provide some protection at work by 2003. But it plans
to do so only at a minimal level under EU regulations, to
avoid parliamentary debate and pressure for the more extensive
legislation that is needed.
Yet the lesson on race in Britain, and on religious discrimination
in Northern Ireland, is clear: legislation that only covers
employment will soon be found to be inadequate. Where discrimination
is prevalent at work, it will be found in the provision
of goods and services as well. The Government's plans fall
far short of the protection now provided on race.
New measures last year not only provide protection from
discrimination in employment and services throughout the
public and private sectors; they also require public bodies
to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between
people of different racial (but not religious) groups. The
Government is committed to extending that duty only to gender
and disability. Yet in the disturbances in Oldham and Bradford,
religion was undoubtedly a factor in the conflict, not only
race. Religious discrimination in Britain is poorly researched.
But the catalogue of verbal abuse and assaults recorded
by Muslim News before and after 11 September leaves no doubt
that public hostility and ignorance provide a climate in
which discrimination is likely. And research published by
the Home Office this year found enough concern about unfair
treatment to justify legal protection across the board,
not only at work. Sikhs and Jews have successfully argued
that, as an 'ethnic group', they come within the protection
of the Race Relations Act. Muslims, Christians and other
faith groups do not. We know from thirty years of race discrimination
legislation that the law alone will not change attitudes.
But the law does require a change in behaviour, supports
those who do not want to discriminate, and provides a remedy
for those who believe they have been treated unfairly. Above
all, providing the full protection of the law would be of
symbolic value to religious minorities in asserting their
equal right to belong. Protection from discrimination on
grounds of religious belief would equally protect those
of no belief. Employers and service providers would be expected
to accommodate religious dress, holidays or diet only if
it did not have an adverse effect on their business.
Exemptions would allow discrimination in any job where faith
was a genuine occupational requirement. Clubs and service
providers could be selective in their membership and customers
where their purpose was to meet the needs of people of a
particular faith. When we look for progress on equality
we tend now to look beyond the law - to ways to promote
good practice, to incentives for employers and to mainstreaming
equality objectives within the public service reform agenda.
Discrimination law, even with its new focus on promoting
equality, does not have the ring of New Labour. But providing
protection for Britain's religious minorities is long overdue.
In the light of September 11, it must now be on the agenda.
Tobin Tax
The notion of a tax on short-term currency speculation
has long been mooted by the left, but is increasingly being
taken seriously by more mainstream political bodies. The
European Commission, that bastion of international socialism,
has launched an urgent study into its feasibility and Lionel
Jospin, the French prime minister, has given it his backing.
Currency speculators trade over $1.8 trillion dollars each
day across borders. The market is huge, and volatile. Each
trade would be taxed at 0.1 to 0.25 per cent of volume (about
10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars). This would discourage
short-term currency trades, about 90 per cent speculative,
but leave long-term productive investments intact. o Billions
in revenue, estimated at $100 - $300 billion per year, would
be generated. o National government would levy and collect
the agreed tax and decide what to do with the revenues.
Revenue could go into earmarked trust funds to fund urgent
international priorities. Multinational taxes might appropriately
be used for international purposes, giving greater credibility
to institutions such as the UN and World Bank. The Labour
government could take a lead on this issue, studying the
feasibility of such a tax and making a report on its implications.
Children
Tony Blair has promised to halve child poverty within 10
years and eradicate it over a further decade. The definition
of poverty is households on half the national average income.
But there needs to be much greater clarity over what exactly
we are targeting. At the current rate fall it will take
at least 50 years to reach the goals. The British Households
panel survey suggests that nearly half of all children experience
poverty at some stage before they go to school. The Government
therefore needs to be clear about whether they are tackling
long or short-term periods of poverty.
There needs to be an independent and authoritative audit
of child poverty - to establish the extent of child poverty
and determine more precise targets. Well paid work for parents
is part of the solution. But significant progress cannot
be left to the vagaries of an already suspect world economy.
A twenty year wait is obviously too long for too many children
currently denied not just equal opportunity but the comfort
of a warm and dry life. A commitment to a national Minimum
Income Standard (see above) would go a long way to easing
child poverty. The Government could also implement the recommendations
of the Social Security Select Committee to overhaul and
inject new funds into the Social Fund. The fund is used
for essential items like shoes, bedding and heaters and
is now worth less in real terms than when Labour came to
power in 1997. Awards are made as a mixture of loans and
grants. Around two/thirds of people applying for grants
are refused. A loan can currently be refused if a person
is considered too poor to pay.
Age
John Monks once famously complained that the trade unions
were being treated as 'embarrassing elderly relatives' by
the Government. If he thinks he's been left out in the cold,
he should try the real thing. In less than five years, the
Government will finally introduce legislation to outlaw
age discrimination in employment, making ageism as unacceptable
in the workplace as sexism or racism.
It's surprising that it's taken so long for age discrimination
to be recognised as a cause for concern. Ageism has a direct,
detrimental affect on people's livelihood and quality of
life - and it can even cost lives. Last year, Age Concern
exposed the scandal of older hospital patients having 'do
not resuscitate' notices pinned on their medical records
without even a token attempt at consultation. Even today,
vital medical treatments are routinely denied, as age is
used as a basis of rationing. Only a third of workers who
become economically inactive in their 50s do so voluntarily
- with an estimated cost to GDP approaching £33 billion.
In some industries, such as IT, you are often thought 'past
it' by the time you reach 40. Hardly the way for the UK
to become the leading knowledge economy to which Gordon
Brown has often aspired.
Older people must be judged on their merits and not just
their age. Recent history has shown that voluntary Codes
of Practice are not enough. They tend to be adopted by good
employers, and ignored by bad ones. To achieve our future
vision, we need comprehensive age discrimination legislation,
policed by a proactive Age Equality Commission with investigative
and enforcement powers. Legislation to ban age discrimination
in employment is a start. But we must be more ambitious
as a society if we are to reap the social and economic benefits
of our greater health and longevity. Legislation should
therefore also encompass measures to end the discrimination
older people face as consumers and as recipients of services,
including public services like health. Only then will we
take the overdue next step towards building a more equal
society.
A land tax
Government action increases the value of land. The extension
of the Jubilee Line cost £3.5bn and has led to huge
increases in land value around the new stations in South
London. It has been estimated that a 25 per cent tax on
the annual return to landlords would increase Treasury funding
by around £325m per year. Over a twenty-year period
the extension would pay for itself. Better still, local
authorities could administer such a tax and spend the fruits
of it locally.
Pay
'Making work pay' is a key component of the Labour government's
strategy for reducing poverty. But while current government
policies focus primarily on raising the income of the low
paid through tax credits, the most equitable and dignified
route out of poverty should always be through just and favourable
remuneration from paid work. Undoubtedly, the introduction
of the National Minimum Wage (NMW), both as a practical
measure and principled policy, has been a major advance
in the fight against low pay. Its introduction in 1999 benefited
1.2 million workers - the majority of whom were women.
Yet, in 2001, women workers still make up two-thirds of
the lowest earners and the gender pay gap has only narrowed
by 13 per cent in the 26 years since the passing of the
Equal Pay Act of 1975. Also, young workers between 18 and
21 years of age receive a lesser minimum wage, and 16 and
17 year-olds are excluded altogether. And although the NMW
for young workers rose in parallel with the adult rate on
1 October, the differential between the two rates has now
increased to 60p an hour. However, the rise of the NMW to
£4.10 an hour is expected to positively affect a further
200,000 workers.
But despite this welcome increase, the great pay divide
between high and low pay remains a major cause of poverty
and inequality. Indeed, the two sides of this earnings gulf
have never been further apart and the distance is starkly
measured by facts such as that a worker on the NMW of £4.10
requires 131 years to earn what the CEO of Vodafone earned
last year alone. Alongside the NMW, in their first term
the Labour government introduced the Working Families Tax
Credit (WFTC) and Disabled Persons Tax Credit, both of which
guarantee a minimum income for working families. They also
implemented EU directives on working time, parental leave,
and improved rights for part-time workers. The WFTC has
been estimated to have cost the Exchequer almost £100
million so far and is, effectively, subsidising lowpaying
employers.
Furthermore, many workers are not receiving their new employment
rights. Indeed, whether through fear, ignorance or embarrassment,
considerable numbers of low-paid people do not enjoy, or
even enquire about, their statutory working entitlements
at all. Any true foundations for justice at work must always
rest on the equity of earnings. The most effective strategy
for the reduction of poverty and inequality is to raise
the wages of the low paid to a level that reflects their
importance to the economy and their worth as citizens. To
this end a NMW of half-male median earnings should be awarded
to all adult workers regardless of employment status, gender,
race or disability.
The ideas and thoughts in this article have come from a
variety of people and sources. In particular it has benefited
from the input of Tim Bickerstaffe (Senior Research
Officer Low Pay Unit), Sarah Spencer (Director of
the Citizenship and Governance Programme at the IPPR) and
Neil Churchill (Communications Director, Age Concern).
In addition Samuel Brittain (writing in the Financial
Times 30.8.01), Michael Jacobs and Adrian Harvey at
the Fabian Society, Michael White (writing in the
Guardian 25.7.01) and the Tobin Tax Initiative made more
unwitting contributions.
|
