The UK is one of the most economically unequal countries in the developed world, and tax, public spending and social security policies in the austerity years only worsened the problem.
Since 2010, the Labour Party has examined the impact of tax and social benefits on different groups. The model developed by Yvette Cooper shows that the savings have come from services predominantly used by women, causing them to bear the brunt of such cuts to the tune of 86%.
While the Government fails to conduct the necessary impact assessments, others are providing evidence of the disproportionate effect that some policies are having on women, children, persons with disabilities or BAME families.
Last November, for example, the Equality and Human Rights Commission demonstrated that the costs of tax, public spending and social security cuts have been borne overwhelmingly by the poor. While everyone has lost some money after the reforms, not everyone has lost the same.
Net cash losses for the bottom 40% have been about £1,500 per year, while for the top 20% the average cash loss has been £200. On average, BAME households have paid a higher price than white households. Families with at least one member with a disability have bit hit particularly hard. Single parent households, more than 80% of whom are headed by women, have suffered disproportionately. In fact, women have been more negatively affected by tax and welfare reforms in all income brackets.
In light of this dire reality, 126 Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Green MPs have called for an immediate equality assessment of all government policies.
In particular, Labour has tabled an amendment to the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2017 to require the Chancellor to review the equality impact of the Budget, including the way in which tax changes and benefit cuts affect households at different income levels.
We welcome this initiative. We desperately need policies that are both transparent and effective in ensuring real equality and an adequate standard of living for everyone.
Regardless of what you think of the UK’s relationship with the European Union, you should consider this: the EU (Withdrawal) Bill currently passing through the British parliament puts some important social rights at risk.
International treaties are legally binding for countries that voluntarily sign and ratify them. The UK and 165 other countries have done so in the case of the ICESCR. However, the UK has not yet incorporated the ICESCR into its domestic legal system. As a result of that, social rights remain relevant in the political discourse but, by and large, legally toothless.
However, people living in the UK do enjoy a number of social rights as a result of the UK’s membership of the European Union.
British laws protecting workers from discrimination and protecting their maternity leave rights, for example, come from EU directives. The European Court of Justice has developed some of these rights on equal pay for equal work and equal access to state pensions. Workers are also entitled to compensation if their EU labour rights are breached.
The UK supreme court drew on EU law when it insisted that employers have to give spouses in same-sex marriages the same pension rights as heterosexual couples. The same court also concluded that employment tribunal fees (charging people for taking action against their employers for unfair treatment) made access to justice practically impossible or excessively difficult for too many people, and that breached EU law as well. The High Court of England and Wales echoed the right to health recognised in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights when it ruled to keep plain packaging for cigarettes.
All these steps were directly or indirectly the result of the UK being an EU member state. The EU (Withdrawal) Bill puts many of these rights at risk. In its current form the bill will erase the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and all the protections that come with it. These protections will no longer apply to British citizens and other residents after Brexit day.
As the Conservative MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve recently argued in parliament, the problem of the EU
(Withdrawal) Bill is that equality or environmental policies, for example, will no longer enjoy the legal protection that EU membership gives them. British authorities will therefore be free to lower or indeed remove the standards that currently protect British people.
In response to this problem, the former High Court judge Michael Tugendhat has advocated that UK courts should have the power to ignore an act of parliament if it is contrary to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU human rights principles.
And to avoid losing equality rights, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee has said that courts should be able to declare that an act of parliament is contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Such a declaration would send a message to parliament that it should consider appealing or amending the offending act – though it would not be obliged to do so and could choose to do nothing at all.
A British tradition
Social rights have been part of Britain’s tradition for centuries and Brexit should not change that. This year marks the 800th anniversary of the Charter of the Forest, which limited landlords’ privileges, facilitated free men’s access to the common land and granted women’s rights that were revolutionary for the standards of the time. Britain is also the land of the Peasants’ Revolt of the 14th century and of the Putney Debates in 1647, the birthplace of Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill, the stronghold of the labour movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, the country of the NHS, the home of the council house.
The UK must match these historical milestones with a categorical legal and political commitment to social rights in the 21st century.
It is not an overstatement to claim that Brexit is a constitutional juncture of unique historical relevance. As Britons look for the future they want to live in, now more than ever they must take back control of their rights. Britain should bring social rights home by incorporating international human rights law into the national legal system.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published today the distributional results for the effects of tax and welfare reforms since 2010. The report presents the disaggregated impact of the changes made to Income Tax, NICs, VAT, social security benefits, tax credits, Universal Credit, and National Minimum and Living Wages.
The data is both illuminating and excruciating.
Let’s start with the good news (Figure 1). The top 10% paid a little bit extra through indirect taxes (VAT and others), and the introduction of the National Living Wage had a positive impact across the board, but more so for the bottom half of society.
And now the rest. The largest cash gains from Income Tax and NICs went to the wealthiest, particularly the top 30%. The poorest adults did not get much out of it either because they were not in work or because they did not earn enough to notice the tax changes.
The most regressive impact came from benefit and tax credits and from universal credit. Households in the second and third decile (those who have to look upwards to find 70-90% of the people) lost more than twice as much as those in the top 20%. The roll out of the universal credit has led to further cash losses.
La noche del 1 de octubre entrevistaron brevemente a un votante del no en un canal de televisión estatal. Se trataba de un joven andaluz, casado con una catalana y padre de dos niñas. Había llegado a Catalunya seis años atrás y decía haber sido muy bien acogido. Visiblemente conmocionado, tras señalar el sentido de su voto nuestro protagonista se lamentaba: “Hoy siento que me han dejado sin argumentos”.
Este hombre y millones más necesitan recuperar esos argumentos. Es más, después de semanas de tensión y angustia, de la DUI y del 155, creo que no me pongo excesivamente dramático si escribo que los necesita la sociedad española en su conjunto.
Aunque no sabemos el número exacto, parece que cerca de dos millones de catalanes se expresaron por la independencia el 1 de octubre. Voces desde Catalunya sostienen que mucha gente, especialmente jóvenes, ya han desconectado de España. Para estas personas no habría solución que no fuera quirúrgica. Es posible que así se sienta parte de la población pero me niego a aceptar que sea el caso de la mayoría. Es más, aunque lo fuera, seguiríamos obligados a buscar y agotar los espacios de entendimiento.
Pueblo y Democracia tuvieron mellizos, niño él, niña ella. Son iguales en peso, altura y grado hereditario, pero no les queremos por igual. El niño se llama Estado de Derecho. La niña, Soberanía Parlamentaria.
Vaya mi tesis por delante. Sostengo que si reconociéramos el mismo valor al Estado de Derecho y a la Soberanía Parlamentaria, la respuesta institucional pero sobre todo ciudadana al contencioso en Catalunya sería distinta.
Si el Estado es de Derecho la sociedad entera, gobernantes incluidos, está sometida a la ley y el papel de los jueces es velar por que así sea. Pero en democracia no nos basta con afirmar que la ley hay que cumplirla. Necesitamos que la ley sea legítima. Y la legitimidad deviene de que la voluntad popular quede reflejada en ella. Mientras no nos inventemos algo mejor, la voluntad de 7,5 o de 46 millones de personas sólo puede conocerse a través de algún mecanismo de representación. Eso es el parlamento, que debe ser soberano, es decir, debe tener poder de decisión sobre el conjunto.
Tanto el Estado de Derecho como la Soberanía Parlamentaria son pilares esenciales pero mantener el equilibrio entre ambos no siempre es fácil. Requiere una actitud responsable y consciente. El Pueblo democráticamente representado se compromete a preservar la independencia de los jueces, y éstos por su parte respetan la supremacía del parlamento.
Jueces y parlamentarios son por lo tanto garantes de una misma libertad. Cumplir con dicha misión es de una trascendencia inconmensurable que exige un ejercicio de autocontrol permanente. Los parlamentarios han de ser conscientes de que no todo lo pueden, y los jueces han de respetar que su poder no proviene de la Facultad de Derecho sino de la voluntad popular.Continue reading “El Estado de Derecho tiene una hermana de la que apenas hablamos”→
The Scottish government is currently consulting on the implementation of Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010, which would require public bodies to consider when making decisions how they would reduce the equalities of outcome resulting from socio-economic disadvantage. Just Fair is one of the organisations leading the #1forEquality campaign to urge the UK government to do the same.
The UK is a very unequal society. While the share of income in the top 20% has remained approximately stable since the early 1990s, the share of the top 1% continuously increased well into the 2000s. There are significant gaps between ethnic groups, with the median income of a family of Bangladeshi origin 35% below that of a white British household. Inequality is most evident in the distribution of wealth: The richest 1,000 people accumulate more wealth than the poorest 40% of households.
The austerity policies implemented by successive UK governments have been strongly criticised by independent international human rights bodies.
In summer 2016 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed serious concernsabout “the disproportionate adverse impact that austerity measures, introduced since 2010, are having on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups”.
Last August the Chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities described the situation in the UK as a “human catastrophe”: “Each disabled person is losing between £2,000 and £3,000 per year; people are pushed into work situations without being recognised as vulnerable, and the evidence that we [the UN Committee] had in front of us was just overwhelming”.
Like all other countries, the UK is expected to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015, including the 10th one, whereby governments pledged to ensure equal opportunity and to reduce inequalities of outcome between and within countries.
However, because of its comparatively low investment in education and a regressive tax structure, the UK does not rank highly when it comes to the commitment to reduce inequality.
The UK must change course soon but luckily we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on public bodies, when making strategic decisions, to consider how they can reduce the inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage.
To take effect, though, this provision requires a formal decision by the Government to activate it, or as is known technically, to commence it.
Despite being at the forefront of the Act, successive governments have failed to bring the socioeconomic equality duty into force. As a result of the Government’s inaction in this regard, in the mentioned 2016 report the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concluded that the UK was not doing everything within its power to tackle discrimination in relation to these rights.
Contributors: Kath Dalmeny (Sustain), Koldo Casla (Just Fair), Elli Kontorravdis (Nourish Scotland), Peter Roderick (Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University).
In 2016, Trussell Trust, the largest UK food bank network, provided 1.2 million packages of emergency food supplies. For comparison, in 2009 they supplied 41,000 packages. This is a symptom of, for example, increasing food and house prices, insecure incomes, rising debt, benefit sanctions, and financial problems for households dealing with disability and mental health. But this is a symptom of something else: That the human right to food is far from a reality for too many people in our country.
Half of the emergency packages went to households looking after a disabled person, three-quarters to people experiencing ill-health and associated financial insecurity, a third to households experiencing problems repaying debt, and a quarter to households reporting that rising costs – such as housing – meant they had simply run out of money to buy food. The majority had been referred to the foodbank by a professional body that had identified them as being in crisis – such as a GP, social security office or Citizens’ Advice Bureau. Continue reading “Beyond hunger and the food bank: a new right to food”→