A Minimum Social Wage

A Minimum Social Wage: the 2007 TUC Poverty Conference

Hosted by the network of Unemployed Workers' Centres

Congress House, London, 17^th October 2007

In the course of the day about 90 delegates and speakers took part in the conference. The conference was opened by the chair, Diana Holland, National Organiser for Equalities at UNITE - TGWU. She noted that this conference was being held to mark World Poverty Day; the Day was also being marked by the launch of a new TUC child poverty microsite: www.tuc.org.uk/childpoverty In their day-to-day activities, Diana argued, unions helped to reduce inequality, fighting against low pay and in-work poverty. They also needed to campaign for an improved welfare state, and one of the conference objectives was to begin the process of developing new campaign goals - trades unionists and anti-poverty campaigners had spent a generation defending the welfare state, but now was the time to go on the offensive by demanding new services, that met new needs and to match achievements that had been promised but never really achieved.

Richard Exell then set out the day's agenda. Unions were currently engaged in a major push to encourage the Government to commit an extra £4 billion on tax credits and benefits for children - the extra spending the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation had said was needed to halve the number of children in poverty by 2010. The TUC was particularly pleased that End Child Poverty had chosen to launch their Month of Action at this conference; the TUC had been an active member of ECP from the outset and an increasing number of unions, Trade Union Councils and union branches had decided to affiliate.

The Chair then introduced the first keynote speaker, Mark Serwotka, the General Secretary of PCS. He drew attention to the irony of the fact that many of his members, whose work for the welfare state was all about counteracting poverty, were themselves the victims of poverty pay. Many of these members were upset about the direction the welfare state was taking; they had been attracted to public service to serve society, not to oil the wheels of commerce of make a profit. People who rely on the welfare state were not well served by the 5% cuts in the DWP administration budget announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review, on top of severe cuts that had already led to slashed services. PCS believed in a welfare state that helped people into employment without the use of compulsion, as in the New Deal for lone parents; compulsion combined with contracting out was a lethal mix. In conclusion, Mark argued that the best way to fight poverty was to unite those in work and those out of work, and he pledged that PCS would campaign against poverty with the organisations represented at the conference.

In the question and answer session that followed, speakers agreed with Mark's comments about the impact of the administration cuts, suggested the need for a Welfare Commission, opposed contracting-out and emphasised the importance of coalition-building. In his response, Mark highlighted the strong links that had been built up between PCS and the Unemployed Workers' Centres, and emphasised PCS's desire to work with voluntary and campaigning organisations. The conference then broke for lunch.

After lunch the conference split into three working sessions (the main points of these sessions was reported back during the question and answer session - see paragraph 9 below). The delegates were then welcomed back by the chair. The first speaker was Kathy Kelly, of ATD (All Together for Dignity) , who emphasised that poverty is a human rights violation; the hardest thing about being poor was the shame, guilt and scapegoating, which are a denial of the right to dignity. It is painful when parents cannot afford school photos, and there is anguish about being unable to afford the latest clothes for children, and dread that they are going to ask for them - if your children do not have the latest clothes they face being bullied. Kathy's experience was that the school did not understand these problems - with the exception of one teacher who came from the same sort of background, but ATD had helped her to get involved in shaping public poverty policies.

Jason Strelitz agreed that involving people in poverty in policy-making was very important. His organisation, Save the Children, emphasised the importance of education, childcare, housing and, of course, incomes: 'a rich man is nothing more than a poor man with money.' Poverty had a huge effect on children's lives, and incomes on benefits were far too low, which was why SCF was promoting the End Child Poverty call for the Government to spend the £4 billion needed to meet its target of halving the number of children in poverty by 2010. It was also time to address to 'poverty premium' - the extra costs faced by people living in poverty.

Kevin Flynn, of the Newcastle and Gateshead Centre Against Unemployment, argued that poverty is a deliberate policy, and so is the failure to do anything about it. During the next downturn tax credits would not help people out of poverty if there were no jobs for them, and downturns were unavoidable in capitalism; the only form of society that would not have poverty was socialism. In response to this situation trade unions should only support parties that supported redistribution.

Hilary Fisher, End Child Poverty, argued that the previous week's Comprehensive Spending Review was a disgrace, failing to allocate anything like the resources needed to achieving the government target of halving the number of children in poverty by 2010. There was a real risk that the Government would fail to make a difference for the 3.8 million children living in poverty in Britain today. The End Child Poverty Month of Action was being launched at the TUC Conference, and Hilary encouraged all the delegates to take an active part in the activities, especially Visit Your MP Day, 2 November - activists needed to challenge the Government and say 'Lead! Don't follow!'

In the answer and question session which followed the following points were made:

• a) One delegate strongly agreed with Kevin, and felt that it was a mistake to support tax credits (which were part of the problem) or the Government, as this meant supporting capitalism and therefore supporting poverty.
• b) Another delegate emphasised the importance of unemployed people as a reserve army of labour that can be used to hold down wages; workers in jobs therefore had an interest in protecting the benefit rights and independence of claimants.
• c) The working group on benefits ^[1] had agreed that benefit levels generally were too low, and had been particularly concerned that the new Employment and Support Allowance would cut disabled people's entitlements to JSA levels for the first three months of their claims. Pensions and other benefits needed to be uprated in line with earnings. The public perception of benefits was wildly out of line with the reality and there was a desperate need for education on just how low benefit rates were - one possible solution was to hold a conference on the subject, possibly inviting Ken Loach! Another possible answer was to produce a poster setting out the rates of the main benefits
• d) Jason agreed with the significance of the demand for higher benefits, the Government seemed to have forgotten their principle of 'work for those who can and security for those who cannot'. He agreed strongly that the policy of uprating benefits in line with inflation (not earnings) meant that claimants' living standards automatically fell further and further behind those of the working population; this policy needed to be reformed alongside a general increase in benefit rates - otherwise we would soon be revisiting the same problem all over again.
• e) The working group on housing ^[2] had concluded that the key concern was to make sure that everyone had access to housing they could afford, that was where they needed it, that was of a high enough standard, and that was protected by rights to make that housing secure. There was a conflict between tenants' rights and the housing market that needed to be resolved in favour of tenants; laws and services should not discriminate between people with different types of tenure, and tenants' rights should be recognised as the important citizens' rights that they were. In terms of provision, there were three vitally important interlinked needs: more social rented housing, more housing in areas of need and higher standards of housing. As in the field of rights, there could be a conflict between the minimum standards dictated by human need and the marketplace - sometimes the right to buy was inhibiting the provision of sufficient social housing and should be revisited, and the need to guarantee the quality of housing might mean that landlords should be licensed.
• f) The social services working group ^[3] had not liked the term 'minimum social services' because minimum standards tended to become maximums, there had been a great preference for the word 'decent' instead. The group had found a great deal of agreement around the principles for decent social services; at the heart should be the goal of guaranteeing that becoming an informal carer was a freely chosen role and of enabling elderly and disabled people to participate to the full in the normal life of the community and live independently. There should be legislation on rights to social care and support for independent living, setting out who has a right to what, what rights carers have, what rights elderly and disabled people have, what should be provided free, what should be means-tested, and which authorities have a duty to provide them.
• g) The chair felt that it would be a good idea to set a target date for ending women's poverty. Hilary agreed, and suggested that the Women's Budget Group could be a useful forum for pressing this case.

Diana then introduced the keynote speaker, Peter Hain MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In his speech, Mr Hain welcomed the ECP Month of Action and the Unemployed Workers' Centres' initiative in hosting this conference . Trade unions were, he felt, an ally in the anti-poverty movement and it was important that the TUC should play a big role in policy debates on this subject. The UK had become richer and the Government had succeeded in cutting the numbers in poverty, but there was still an intolerable level of child poverty: the Government was still committed to its goal of ending child poverty, however challenging that target was. The TUC and ECP were right to press the Government to live up to its promises in this regard. The Government remained committed to an employment-centred anti-poverty strategy, and unemployment was bad for people's health and well being, which was why full employment (a traditional union objective) was such an important goal. But Mr Hain had no interest in pressing lone parents or disabled people into badly-paid jobs where they would be worse off, and he challenged campaigners work with him on helping people off benefits and into good jobs.

In the question and answer session that followed, the delegates raised a number of issues with Mr Hain, including the inadequacy of the Social Fund, the problem of in-work poverty, criticisms of the new Employment and Support Allowance and the Cuban social and economic model. In response, Mr Hain issued an invitation to a delegation from the Unemployed Workers' Centres to visit him. Mr Hain was concerned that people trapped by loan sharks and others facing debt needed a different way of providing low-cost finance, and urged the UWCs to discuss this issue with him. There were too many working households in poverty, and he thought that the priorities for addressing this included a minimum wage set at as high a level as was consistent with high levels of employment and the strict enforcement of employment rights. He encouraged as many people and organisations as possible to provide feedback on the proposals in the Green Paper - the consultation would last till the end of October.

The Chair then welcomed the day's final speaker, Frances O'Grady, Deputy General Secretary of the TUC. Frances believed that setting out our vision of a generous, empowering, twenty-first century welfare state was a vital task. Genuine progress had been made over the previous ten years, and the welfare state was therefore an ideal place to start setting out a distinct vision for the future. People who believed in fairness, equality and social justice could assist in this task by helping to make the case for a new welfare settlement. This would mean going beyond Beveridge's male breadwinner model to create a welfare state that was relevant to the changed role of women, the ageing population, the growth of single-person households and our multi-racial and migrant workforce. It would also mean really getting to grips with inequality, and focusing on four key areas: supporting Britain's army of carers, getting a better deal for disabled people, narrowing the race gap in employment and stepping up the fight against child poverty. A new welfare settlement must include higher benefits, uprating in line with earnings and an end to cuts, competition and contracting-out at Jobcentre Plus. Combating child poverty had become a massive priority for the TUC, which had contacted every union's General Secretary, asking them to affiliate to End Child Poverty. Tackling inequality, Frances concluded, was the great cause of our time, and the trade union movement needed to be fully involved, right from the start.

In the question and answer session which followed, delegates asked Frances to make sure that the TUC prioritised the serious decline in the quality of DWP services caused by the cuts that had been imposed on the Department, and to include in the TUC response to the Green Paper a criticism of the Government's planned harsh treatment of lone parents; Frances indicated that the TUC would certainly incorporate these points in its response.

The Chair thanked Frances for her speech and concluded that the conference had issued a clear call for action on ending child poverty. In place of fear people wanted value, trust and an end to inequality, and the campaign to make sure the Government lived up to its promises on child poverty must be a union priority. Diana thanked the speakers and delegates and the TUC staff who had organised the day and then closed the conference.

Annex: Briefing on 'Minimum Social Services' prepared by Gerry Zarb, Policy and Strategy Directorate, Equality and Human Rights Commission

The 'crisis' in social care

1.8 million receive social care services (England) and Wales) and annual expenditure is £19.1 Billion

Nearly 8 out of 10 authorities only offer services to people in critical or substantial need categories. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and Commission for Social Care Inspection have both warned that eligibility will be tightened even further in the coming months. (This was before last week's Comprehensive Spending Review but the extra funding promised there is unlikely to do more than slow this trend for a while until demand once again starts to outstrip supply.)

Restricted access to social care - especially for older people - also impacts on the NHS. There was a 10% increase in the number of delays for discharges from hospitals last year, many put down to the fact that there was no social service package in place to allow people to go home.

Unmet or ineligible needs do not disappear - they just manifest themselves in other parts of the system e.g. demand for residential care, hospital services etc....

The current system is not sustainable - the Wanless Review estimates there will be a 45% increase in care and support needs over next 20 years and, in the light of an ageing population, investment in social care would need to increase by a minimum of 139% by 2026 just to maintain existing service levels.

Even if the minimum extra investment Wanless called for was forthcoming that would still not address the need to support people's wider participation in social and economic activity, and future generations are probably not going to settle for the bare minimum of being kept washed and fed. If this wider support were made available, Wanless estimates that investment would need to increase by 142% by 2026, to £31.3 Billion.

The CSR last week has promised an extra £2.6 Billion for social care by 2010/11. As several organisations, including the Local Government Association have pointed out, this is barely adequate to maintain the status quo and will not meet the rising demand highlighted in the Wanless Review. This means that: 'The inevitable consequence is that council tax payers will have to foot the bill, alongside cuts to current levels of service.' (LGA Briefing on CSR2007)

Who plugs the gaps?

6 million unpaid carers, mainly women. 4 million carers are of working age and peak age is between 45 and 64 when 1 in 4 people provide unpaid 'care'.

80% of families of disabled children say they are at breaking point.

Only 16% of mothers of disabled children are working.

This creates deepening inequalities - more women held back from the workforce, more forced to take lower paid part-time jobs to fit.

85% of women over 60 say caring adversely affected their ability to build up a pension.

Can social care meet the challenge of an ageing population?

It is expected that there will be a 50% increase to 9 million people providing unpaid 'care' over the next 20 years.

The balloon - over next 10 years, over 85 age group is set to increase by 28%, which will impact on their children who are in their 30' and 40's now. But, as shown in the Ipsos/MORI poll commissioned by DRC, EOC and Carers UK last year, many people in this age group will be unable or unwilling to provide this support in the future. This is not surprising when you consider how much personal debt that generation has - many could simply not afford to stop working even if they wanted to.

There is also likely to be a big increase in the number of disabled children. If the number of disabled children continues to increase at the same level it did between 1975 and 2002, it will rise from 770,000 in 2002 to 1.25m by 2029.

There will be increasing pressures on those caught in the middle (the care sandwich) - those with children and those with relatives (mainly parents) that need support.

Changing expectations mean that the 'baby boomer' generation expect more from public social care services and this will only add to the unsustainability of the current system. Again, this was reflected in last year's Ipsos/MORI poll on the general public's expectations of social care:

90% thought it important to receive support that enables people to live in their own home - rather than be left with no choice but to move into residential care; [1]

83% thought it important for services to enable people to visit family/friends; and

78% support services that enable participation in community activities.

The case for major investment in social care

Money saved centrally from payment in tax rebates (credits) and benefits - from both unpaid carers and disabled people enabled to increase their economic participation.

More people available for the job market. Particularly important for older workers given the dwindling proportion of younger people in the population, and the pressures on everyone to work longer to build up their pensions.

Lessening of inequality - knocking out the 'disability penalty' which means that needing support often keeps people in a state of dependency and poverty. Investment would also help reduce the other inequalities created by the current system, particularly for unpaid carers and older women.

Social care - like investment in childcare could release many more people to take up opportunities rather than families being shut out.

Why we need legislation on rights to social care and support for independent living

The over-arching goal for a reformed system of social care should be to create a level playing field by entitling people to a minimum level of support necessary to participate in the range of social and economic roles and activities that most citizens take for granted. Even the most cursory examination of the evidence on the extent of older and disabled people's exclusion can leave no doubt as to the justification for such rights.

Disabled people have very few rights to services that would guarantee assistance to enable independent living. What minimum rights there are do not guarantee very much more being washed and fed.

There are also a number of fundamental problems with the existing legislative framework for social care that work against achieving independent living and - in many ways - actually hold back people's aspirations for choice and control in their lives:

1. The framework places duties on local authorities to provide services, rather than giving rights to individuals to receive support.

2. There are no positive rights in existing legislation to enable people to choose where they live or who with and no legal protection against disabled people being forced to live in institutional care against their wishes.

3. It does not adequately cover assistance to participate in leisure activities, work, relationships, or looking after children/other family members.

4. There is no legal entitlement to advocacy except in very limited circumstances.

5. Enforcement of existing entitlements involves negotiating an inaccessible legal system with inadequate support.

Malevolent benevolence

Another very important way that rights to independent living could underpin older and disabled people's ability to exercise their civil and human rights is by tackling head on the state of institutionalised dependency that our current public services often do more to maintain than to challenge.

Common perceptions of the nature and purpose of social care - among both service professionals and the general public - essentially portray older and disabled people as passive 'recipients of care', rather than active citizens facing practical barriers to participation in the social and economic life of the community.

"Society still sees its best response to disability as care, welfare and charity - rather than equal rights, opportunities and citizenship ... Our instinct is to protect. But in 'protecting' people we deny humanity rather than liberating it.' (Sir Bert Massie, former DRC Chair)

There remains a persistent culture of categorising some disabled people as inherently 'vulnerable', at risk and without sufficient competence to manage their own affairs. When combined with public authorities ' 'duty of care' and a culture of risk aversion in areas of the public sector, opportunities for disabled people to assume greater control over their own lives too often remain extremely restricted.

Social Care and Human Rights

In practice current policy and practice on meeting older and disabled people's support needs does not adequately reflect either the spirit or the legal requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). With the exception of the Bournewood judgement legal cases that have highlighted Human Rights failings in existing community care arrangements (e.g. East Sussex and Enfield) have not resulted in any corrective measures in either legislation or statutory guidance.

As Help The Aged have highlighted in relation to older people - although their findings apply equally to disabled people - the very system by which support is currently organised and delivered can actually put people's human rights at risk.

Eligibility for support is often so tightly rationed that people are left in deteriorating circumstances until such time that their situation is deemed critical enough to warrant support. Similarly few services go beyond very basic 'life and limb' support to address the range social, psychological or emotional needs, which may be essential for sustaining the level of dignity and integrity required by the ECHR. [2]

People's rights to respect for private and family life under the ECHR are completely overridden when they are required to leave their homes and families against their will - either because they do not meet local eligibility criteria or because it is deemed more cost effective to place them in residential care rather than provide adequate support at home.

Applying human rights principles to the question of promoting independent living and inclusion also highlights the need for some significant changes in the ways we have traditionally viewed provision of support for disabled people. For example:

Promoting community living in place of institutional care.

Providing support which facilitates social inclusion and participation.

Ensuring that the delivery of social care and other support services maximises choice and control.

Accepting that the ultimate aim of any support system should be to address barriers to social inclusion and participation.

We need to question why, in the 21st Century, it is still seen as acceptable for older and disabled people to be living in institutions against their wishes, to be denied access to basic support to enable them to enjoy a family or social life, and to be guaranteed no more than the bare minimum services for day to day survival.

For all the apparent complexity in achieving the aim of supporting independence and participation, this goal is fairly unremarkable. It is essentially about enabling older and disabled people to access the freedoms and life opportunities they should expect as British citizens - nothing more and nothing less.

---

[1] The lead speaker for this group was Eileen Devaney of the UK Coalition Against Poverty and Terry Abbott (National Consultative Meeting of UWCs) chaired the session.

[2] The lead speaker for this group was Hazel Parsons of Shelter and Kevin Flynn (National Consultative Meeting of UWCs) chaired the session.

[3] The Lead Speaker for this group was Richard Exell, standing in for Gerry Zarb of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Hilary Cave (Derbyshire UWC) chaired the session, standing in for Barry Johnson, who was unwell. Richard reported that Gerry had been unable to come to the conference, but had very kindly provided a set of notes, which he used to lead in to the discussion (a copy of Gerry's notes is appended as an annex to this report.)

---

[1] Nearly 300,000 people are currently supported by local authorities in institutional care (Community Care Statistics, 2004) but there is currently no recourse to legal action for being forced to live in an institution against your wishes. Rising numbers of people with mental health conditions and/or learning disabilities are being placed in residential care - at high costs to local authorities.

[2] Tessa Harding, Rights At Risk: Older people and human rights, Help The Aged, 2005