What's wrong with Universal Credit?

Universal Credit is the Coalition's flagship welfare policy. Universal Credit is a single benefit that will replace six existing means-tested benefits. Its aim is to be simpler and to create fewer anomalies, (Everyone agrees that the existing system is a mess and creates perverse incentives, ie provides people with rewards for doing things that we don't want them to do.)

There's lots wrong. Let's start with the project of introducing UC:

• It's way over budget. The DWP says it will cost £12.8 billion over 11 years. The original estimate was £2.2 billion.
• It's late. The plan was to have one million people on UC by April 2014. In fact hardly anyone was.
•  It will do less than originally planned. For instance, it won't replace Council Tax benefit.

All this is pretty shambolic - but far from unique for major public sector change programmes. All politicians who plan major changes, and that certainly includes us Greens, should remember the key message here: "Listen to your critics. They know things you need to know."

Now some consequences:

• In many families it will replace payments to women with payments to men. In most cases this won't matter but in dysfunctional families the men are more likely than women to waste the money.
• It will make life more difficult for the poorly-paid self-employed (a rapidly growing group under this government!). They will have to submit three different sets of accounts - for VAT, Income Tax and UC.

The worst aspect, in my view, is the claw-back rate. In 2010 the coalition claimed that people on UC would lose £65 of benefits for every extra £100 they earned and that this was acceptable. But recently the Telegraph calculated it at 73% whilst another source has said 76%. In other words a person on minimum wage would be working for just £2 per hour. That's not much of an incentive!

But it gets worse. Because some benefits that aren't included have their own claw-back rates the net claw back rate will sometime be more than 100%. This is surely indefensible.

One final thing. There's an interaction between UC and increases in the tax-free threshold. (That's the LibDems signature policy which "takes lots of poor people out of the tax system".) Any increase in this threshold provides the poor with extra income but because UC is based on net income most of the gain (65% or73%) is clawed back by the state. That's a NEW anomaly since the benefits that UC will replace did not claw-back such gains.

A dreadful policy badly implemented.The Green Party would replace the whole thing with Basic Income - but that needs a separate post.

Down and out in Britain and Enfield

The government has denied that its benefit policies are driving people to foodbanks. As so often, its wrong.

Benefit sanctions
Official data shows that the number of sanctions has increased since 2006 and more steeply since 2012.  The number of sanctions, now over 1 million per year, is nearly four times as many as in 2006.

There are many examples of absurd sanctions, eg a sanction applied for missing a JobCentre interview because the claimant was at a job interview! A research report by Dr Kesia Reeve of Sheffield Hallam University says that "when sanction decisions are reviewed, half of them are overturned ... The evidence at present is limited, but points clearly to a system that is more punitive than it is supportive".

But what happens when people are sanctioned? Often they run out of money. In a survey published by Manchester Citizens Advice Bureau in 2013 80% of those sanctioned said they got into debt.

Debt
The debt advice charity StepChange says "Personal consumer debt in the UK stands at £168 billion and it’s rising at its fastest rate since the credit crunch ... for too many, debt becomes a serious problem. Almost three million people are in problem debt in Britain. ... The cost of problem
debt to society is conservatively estimated at £8.3 billion."

Debt may become a problem when an unexpected bill arrives or when income falls unpredictably. A survey for StepChange found that almost two thirds of the workforce worry about how they
would cope if they experienced an income shock. The Money Advice Service estimates 9 million people are over-indebted and StepChange estimates that  2.9 million people in Great Britain are in severe problem debt.

Benefit sanctions and other problems often drive people into or deeper into debt. Where people  already have too much debt either of these may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Some will be unable to feed themselves or their children.

Foodbanks
The Trussell Trust runs 430 foodbanks and continues to open new ones. There's one in Enfield North, just off  the A10. Last year Trussell Trust foodbanks provided 3 days food to 913,138 people. (The Trust admits that there's some double counting in that number.) That's 163% more than in the previous year and 14 times more than in 2010. Established foodbanks provided 51% more food than last year.

The single biggest cause of people using a foodbank is a problem with benefit and the Trust says "83 percent of Trussell Trust foodbanks surveyed recently reported that benefits sanctions, which have become increasingly harsh, have caused more people to be referred to them for emergency food". The Trust also mentions "Static incomes, rising living costs, low pay, underemployment".

The Trust’s Chairman, Chris Mould, has called for: "A more thoughtful approach to the administration of the benefits regime and sanctions in particular, increasing the minimum wage, introducing the living wage and looking at other measures such as social tariffs for essentials like energy."

These are all Green Party policies or consistent with those policies. Perhaps he should join the Green Party!

TTIP: The end of democracy?

TTIP is the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It’s a proposed treaty that’s currently being negotiated between the EU and the USA. It’s hard to discuss because (a) it’s not yet final and (b) the negotiations are secret.

Its official purpose is to reduce the trade barriers between the US and the UK. Since there are few tariff barriers between the parties the main focus must be on non-tariff barriers, ie explicit protectionism and rules which make it difficult for a company to sell products and services outside its home country. In the case of foodstuffs these rules might relate to safety, inclusion of GM crops, use of antibiotics and other drugs on farm animals and animal welfare issues.  In the case of financial services the rules might relate to bankers bonuses or to risk management. In any sector the rules might relater to terms of employment, fair trade or environmental protection.

The impact of TTIP

In fact it’s fair to say that TTIP may undermine any of the protections for workers, consumers, animals or the environment that have been built up over the last century. TTIP looks like a corporate end-run round the advances made by trade unions, humanitarians and progressive campaigners generally.

Even if these advances were to be protected TTIP could make further advances impossible. It would make a farce of democracy at both national and EU levels.

That’s because of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. In simple terms ISDS will allow companies to sue governments for breaches of TTIP. These disputes will be judged in private courts staffed by corporate lawyers! For an independent view see this in the Economist.

The likely effect of TTIP will be a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of healthcare, environmental protection, employment rights and animal welfare (among other things).

So, like the rest of the Green Party, I'm opposed to TTIP because:

• ISDS makes democracy ineffective at both national and EU levels.
• It undermines established protections
• It strengthens corporate power over us, our trade and our governments.
• It will make liberalisation and privatisation 'one way streets': returning public utilities, hospitals or waste collection to the public sector once privatised will be much more difficult or even impossible once the agreement is in place.

The grey response to TTIP
It’s no surprise that UKIP, the Tories and LibDems support it – they favour greater corporate power and the only way they think we can compete is precisely by ‘racing to the bottom’, that is, abandoning our hard-won protections let alone the possibility of more in the future.

Labour attitude is harder to understand – it says it will support TTIP provided that its support for privatisation doesn’t cover the NHS. This assumes that only the NHS must be kept in the public sector, that it’s possible to draft TTIP so that it excludes the NHS and that Labour would recognise such a draft. I regard each of these assumptions as absurd.

But it’s worth asking why some otherwise sensible people support TTIP. I see two reasons – one public and one concealed. The public reason is that TTIP will make trade easier and that neoliberal theory says that that will make us all richer. But the theory is not true. Increases in trade may increase wealth but almost all of that extra wealth now goes to the rich – leaving the rest of us with lower wages and worse conditions. Just greater inequality.

Which suggests the concealed reason. It’s been a long-standing complaint by British business that the EU’s open market in goods allows the Germans and French to sell us products but the lack of openness in services stops our service businesses – our leading sectors – from selling into the rest of the EU.  And the leading service sector is, of course, banking!

So maybe it’s the bankers who really want TTIP. What a surprise!

The Green response

Elected Greens in the European Parliament and here in the UK are working hard to resist TTIP – with some success. The Green Party will do everything in its power – working with others at home and abroad – to prevent this damaging, dangerous and undemocratic agreement from coming into force.

The Green Party is the only major UK political party to oppose TTIP.

Concerning the Countryside Alliance

The Countryside Alliance was formed to defend the countryside and, in particular, to stop parliament from making foxhunting illegal. In this election it’s presented candidates with a manifesto which it summarises as follows:

• Digital Communications: Full digital connectivity for rural communities to ensure they can compete economically and socially.
• Food and Farming: A fair market for British farmers and producers through proper country of origin labelling.
• Rural Communities: Fair government funding for rural areas; local affordable housing; and reduced VAT on domestic repair, maintenance and improvement work.
• Rural Services: Protection for rural services, in particular local post offices and the Royal Mail’s Universal Service Obligation (USO).
• Wildlife Management: Proper engagement by government and its agencies with those who actually manage the countryside; wildlife management to be based on principle and evidence, and repeal of the Hunting Act.

In the manifesto itself the Hunting Act occupies less than one page out of 6. Perhaps the CA has accepted the inevitable?

Since it’s my policy to reply to all letters I read the manifesto. Now Enfield North is a largely urban constituency so it has limited relevance to – though we do include farms, parks and riding stables. But all greens should care about the countryside, above all because it provides much of our food – and may have to provide more in future. 

I therefore replied to the Executive Chairman, Sir Barney White-Spunner, as follows:

Sir Barney,

….  I'm pleased to say that as a Green Party PPC I'm very sympathetic to most of the points you raise. For instance digital connectivity, food labelling, more affordable housing and support for Post Offices all seem consistent with our policies.

Issues of government funding are difficult. My own constituency faces rising numbers, increasing house prices and serious poverty in some parts. I don't generally agree with the government but in this case we are 'all in this together'. In my view these problems cannot be solved without fundamental social change – change we shall not get from the mainstream parties. 

There's one issue on which we will not agree. I welcomed the Hunting Act and would not vote for repeal.

Though most Britons live in cities we would not live at all without the work of farmers and growers. Greens understand the value of the countryside both for food and for recreation. We need a prosperous, healthy countryside.

For humane and sustainable farming

As a member of the Green Party, I support Compassion in World Farming’s (CIWF) charter for a sustainable and environmentally friendly farming system. This would be good for human and animal welfare, and for the long-term viability of our countryside.
 

The need for sustainable ways of life, that is, ways that leave a healthy world for our grandchildren, and maybe their grandchildren, is a top priority for all green activists. In the case of farming that leads the Green Party to support sustainable agriculture and farming practices that help conserve and enhance the land for future generations.

It is our policy to phase out all forms of 'factory farming' and support a transition to small free-range units, mixed rotational farming and extensive grazing. We support the highest levels of animal welfare in farming and aim to ensure that the ‘Five Freedoms’ listed in the Animal Welfare Act are applied to all farm animals.

In addition, we support localisation and a shortening of the food chain, to reduce fossil fuel use and the vulnerability of the global food supply to climate change and rises in the price of fuel.

We recognise that high rates of consumption of meat and other animal products in richer countries, and rising demand elsewhere, means that an increasing requirement for animal feed competes with food production for direct human consumption. Globally, the combination of increasing population and prosperity on the one hand and of climate change and soil degradation on the other will drive up food prices. It will also create actual shortages and wild price fluctuations. 

The UK must prepare for this by developing farming systems that are more productive yet less dependent on fossil fuels and sustainable.

The Green Party will encourage healthy and sustainable consumption patterns, including a shift towards more plant-based foods. On good land arable farming produces at least three times more nutrition per acre than grazing – sometimes much more. This shift would enable an increasing world population to be fed sustainably and would help to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss.

Like CIWF, we believe in working with nature rather than against, because we recognise the fundamental connections between human society and the rest of the biosphere.

Protecting the countryside

I'm supporting the manifesto produced by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).  The manifesto advocates:

•  Increasing delivery of the right housing in the right places by investing in affordable housing to meet local needs, and providing incentives for custom-build and small-scale house builders, prioritising building on brownfield sites.

• Support local aspirations by introducing a community right of appeal against speculative development which conflicts with agreed local or neighbourhood plans. 

•  Prioritising smarter transport choices, including supporting community-led transport, better public transport networks and local freight distribution hubs, over road expansion

• Ensuring that new energy infrastructure minimises local impacts through incentivising renewable energy on buildings and brownfield sites, and adopting a precautionary approach to fracking.

• Promoting the resilience of the food and farming system by strengthening policies to protect the best farmland from development and to foster the growth of local food economies, from ‘field to fork’.

• Enhancing people’s experience of the countryside, by committing to monitoring rural tranquillity and dark skies and strengthening the policies created to improve them.

These demands are entirely consistent with Green political philosophy. For instance, we strongly supports London's Green Belt, and want planning policy to continue to direct new development in smart, compact neighbourhoods rather than sprawling out onto our countryside.

Indeed, most of the CPRE’s demands concern planning and here we see that successive changes have limited the ability of local planning authorities to make the decisions they think right for their communities.

Local planning authorities have suffered some of the deepest cuts in local government, which is threatening their ability to plan London well. I am standing on an anti-austerity platform, and so would stop further cuts to councils. The Green Party agrees that local councils should have a much more proactive role in the development process, including assembling sites for development and developing more of the plans.

They should also engage citizens more meaningfully in the development of policy, co-producing plans rather than 'consulting' on plans that have already effectively been set in stone.

Finally, planners need to retrofit our existing communities so that they are resilient to climate change, and meet the needs of those let down by some of the more poorly planned areas of the capital. We fully support the concept of ‘Lifetime Neighbourhoods’ and would like planning policy to aim for everyone to be within 5 minutes travel of essential local services.

We believe that local planning authorities need to be better resourced to carry out this essential role, to ensure that London becomes more liveable and resilient, and meets our needs for new homes without sprawl.

Answering my mail: The NHS

Like every candidate I've had scores of e-mails about the NHS. (Thanks 38 Degrees!) Every one expresses fears about its future under the coalition. They think that the creation of an internal 'market' (by Labour) and the obligation to allow private firms to bid for contracts (by the coalition) will worsen service, cause fragmentation of the NHS and ultimately lead to more charges to patients. Perhaps, ultimately, to a US-style insurance system.

One correspondent listed six relatives who had suffered major medical problems. I sympathise - I owe the lives of my wife and one daughter to its work.

I don't think our fear of privatisation is paranoid. It's what Nigel Farage wants (which probably doesn't matter) but also what some Tories want (which may). So I've been happy to share my principles for the NHS:

1. I support the NHS as a public service that should be firmly in the public sector. If elected I would support the NHS Reinstatement Bill, promoted by Green MP Caroline Lucas, whose purpose is to reverse the current drive to privatise the NHS.
2. I would stop further service contracts from being given to private businesses in all but the most exceptional circumstances. I have attended meetings of the local Clinical Commissioning Group to speak against privatisation.
3. I am, like the rest of the Green Party and unlike the mainstream parties, opposed to TTIP. I would vote against it.
4. I would certainly vote more money for the NHS.

My immediate priorities, if elected, would be to address the problems created by ideological meddling by the last two governments. I would also want to sharply increase the work done on disease prevention. In the longer term I believe we need to rethink the relationships between the NHS and local authorities, especially in the care of the elderly.

You can find the party's full health policies at http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/he.html. It's worth stressing that Greens see health as more than the absence of disease and health policy as being as much concerned with diet, exercise, housing and working conditions as with healthcare in the usual sense.