Campaign for Adequate Incomes & Affordable Housing Launch Seminar

1. The Moral-case Campaign for Adequate Minimum Incomes and Truly Affordable Housing Launch seminar: Portcullis House, 1 November 2018 Dr Nicholas Sagovsky, Visiting Professor, Theology and Religious Studies, KCL

2. Some Background Information The Poll Tax to replace rates (based on property values) was included in the Conservative Manifesto 1987; introduced in Scotland 1989/90, England 1990/91. There was a strong sense of injustice: this was a ‘regressive’ tax (the poorer you were the bigger proportion of your income it took). People were being jailed as those who ‘wouldn’t pay’, when the problem was they ‘couldn’t pay’ There was a need to look more closely at low incomes: how much could people afford to pay for local authority services? 1990: Mrs Thatcher fell; John Major became PM and withdrew the Poll Tax.

3. Important lessons were learnt when people were taken to court The fear of bailiffs and the poor regulation of bailiffs: there was an urgent need to strengthen protection for the vulnerable. The lack of Legal Aid to present the ‘can’t pay’ case. Lawyer Alan Murdie pioneered the use of McKenzie Friends (lay supporters in court). The importance of clear means statements – these were much appreciated by magistrates. The importance of case-work in understanding poverty and identifying ways forward.

4. The problem with benefits/low incomes The Beveridge Report (1942) identified five ‘giant evils’ in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and disease. The Welfare State (1948) was established to combat these evils in the fields of housing, education, poverty, unemployment, and poor health. Unemployment benefit was supposed to be a short-term help - until people found other work. Benefit levels were never set with regard to what it actually costs to live - or the difference between living short-term on benefits and long-term need for benefits. Successive governments talked of uprating benefits, but did this without reference to need. What was required to ensure adequacywas a measure of need.

5. The Key Question: What are Benefits supposed to Cover? This question was not being answered by successive UK governments. John Veit-Wilson (Setting Adequacy Standards, How Governments Define Minimum Incomes, 1998) widened the question to minimum incomes: what should minimum incomes cover? Veit-Wilsonargued the need for a scientific measure or measures to determine the adequacy of minimum incomes ie were minimum incomes (whether earned or unearned) enough to meet people’s needs? His term was minimum income standards. A number of methods were being used by governments round the world to measure need. Veit-Wilson suggested using them together: ‘triangulation’.

6. The ‘Basket of Goods’ Paul Nicolson commissioned research by the Family Budget Unit to determine how much it cost to purchase a basket of goods enabling families with young children to live at a ‘low cost but acceptable’ level. Important debates took place around what should be included. The increasing cost of housing has been a serious issue from the start. Should those on the lowest incomes be able to spend money on new clothes? sport? a holiday? alcohol? gifts? What about the cost for families on long-term low income whoneed to replace clothes and furniture?

7. Low Cost but Adequate: the Living Wage For the first time sums were identified that enabled people to live at a level that was ‘low cost but acceptable’. From this came a campaign for a Living Wage – taken up by Unison and London Citizens. More and more employers have become ‘living wage’ employers. The taskof determining a ‘London Living Wage’ wastaken up by Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London, followed by Boris Johnson and Sadiq Khan. Each year the Mayor’s Office announces a London Living Wage based on what it actually costs to live in London. This is not the same as the National Minimum Wage (for ages 16-24) and the National Living Wage (for age 25+) announced by the Government – which do not have behind them a rigorous measure of adequacy.

8. The Living Wage Today The (real) Living Wage is calculated by the Resolution Foundation for the Living Wage Commission, using the cost of a basket of goods as the key to a Minimum Income Standard (www.livingwage.org.uk). It is currently £10.55 for London and £9.00 for the rest of the UK (November 2017). There are now 1443 London employers accredited. This compares with just 27 employers who publicly backed the Living Wage in 2008. The Living Wage Foundation supports both the London and National Living Wage campaigns by providing ‘accreditation’ to those Living Wage employers who pay it.

9. The ‘National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage’ https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates These rates are for the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage. The rates change every April.

10. Are we going backwards? When the early work on a low cost but adequate income was done, food banks were unknown. Universal Credit is now being introduced. Concerns about Universal Credit focus on three areas: 1 The gap between applying for Universal Credit and receiving any money is 5-6 weeks. In this period, people are needing the help of food banks to survive. 2 Cuts in housing benefit mean that people cannot afford to meet other needs. 3 The levels of Universal Credit are not being set with reference to any measure of need. Zero hours contracts mean people may find themselves ‘employed’ but with no or little income, and with continuing insecurity.

11. The importance of the work of Wilkinson and Pickett Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have shown (eginThe Spirit Level, Why More Equal Societies almost always do Better, 2009) that it is not only the levels of poverty which lead to human distress. It is the level of inequality in a society. The greater the level of inequality, the less ‘healthy’ overall a society is. To understand the impact of ‘poverty’ there is a need to look at the overall distribution of income levels within a society, and at the difference between the highest and the lowest income levels.

12. What then is the moral case for adequate minimum incomes? Why ought people to have adequate minimum incomes? Because this is what we all need. We all need a certain level of nourishment, warmth, human interaction etc to survive. Without it, we experience what Rowntree called ‘primary poverty’. If our needs at this level are not met, we will die. Above this basic level, there is a secondary level of nourishment, warmth, human interaction etc we need to thrive. There are other needs, like the need for social participation (which requires reasonable clothing), education, creativity etc. which must be met if we are to thrive. If our needs are not met at this level (‘secondary poverty’), we will not be able to fulfil our capabilities (Sen, Nussbaum).

13. The moral case for adequate minimum incomes summed up: In a relatively wealthy society, people (especially pregnant women, mothers with children, and children) ought to have what they need to thrive. We have to ask what minimum income (wage or benefit level)is adequate for each person (especially children) in our society to thrive? This is the level of income each person ought to have. The world’s major philosophical and religious traditions all teachthat this is what each one of us should seek for all others. Nicholas Sagovsky nsagovsky@gmail.com