Introduction
I would like to thank the Fabian Society for organizing this series
of lectures on life chances, and also for the work of their Commission
on Child Poverty and Life Chances.
For the Fabian Society concern
with child poverty, inequality and injustice has always been at
the heart of their work. Indeed the very first Fabian Society tract,
published after the Match Girls strike in 1888, was called “Why
are the many poor?” Championing the cause of the many not
the few has always been the rationale for the Fabian Society, just
as it has been the political purpose of the Labour Party through
its history too.
But this series of lectures,
and the work of the commission on life chances and child poverty
are, I believe, particularly significant. .
As the interim report of the
Fabian Society Commission on Life Chances and Child Poverty makes
clear, their ambition is to;
“reshape the wider public
debates about poverty and inequality in Britain… to [build]
a new settlement, a new political consensus, if the decision not
to accept poverty in our society is to prove as politically robust
as Clement Atlee’s National Health Service became after 1951.”
These are bold aims. But they
are also essential aims. They are critical to our purpose in the
Labour Party, and in the Labour government, and also to our future
as a nation.
This is the fifth of the Fabian
series of lectures on life chances.
Already David Miliband has set
out why improving life chances is a vital part of a modern social
democratic approach, and why Labour today is well placed to entrench
those values at the heart of a modern political settlement.
John Reid has argued strongly
for the importance of empowering people and raising aspirations,
particularly for improving health.
Ruth Kelly set out a passionate
case for developing every child’s talents, and the further
improvements she is championing for our schools.
And Alan Milburn has set out
Labour’s purpose to smash the glass ceiling on opportunities,
and the clear dividing lines this leaves with the Conservatives.
In the final lecture in the
series I want to return to the point where the Fabian Society started,
to child poverty, life chances and the need for a political consensus.
I want to explain why I think the crusade to widen life chances
for all is so important for Labour’s third term election campaign,
for our moral and political purpose as a party, and for the future
of our nation.
I believe that the aims of cutting
child poverty and widening life chances for all should command wide
and strong support across society. After all this is a progressive
programme which benefits not simply those suffering greatest disadvantage,
but everyone whose potential is still denied.
The challenges we face ahead
as an economy and as a society mean that the Conservative approach
to these issues would be deeply destructive and divisive, and would
be to the detriment not just of the most vulnerable, but to our
economic prosperity and the cohesion of society as a whole.
Just as John Reid has talked
about health care, and Ruth Kelly has talked about education, I
want also to say something specifically about how housing and sustainable
communities impact on life chances too. And finally I want to support
David’s conclusions about how we – and the Fabian Society
– need to do more to build the progressive consensus so that
no one dare turn the clock back on poverty again.
1. Child Poverty Matters
The left has always felt passionately about the alleviation
of poverty. The Labour Party over the decades has championed support
for those who are vulnerable and excluded.
But for all the progress in
the middle of the twentieth century, the final decades saw a shocking
rise in child poverty, fuelled by Conservative policies at the time.
The trebling of child poverty between 1979 and 1997 (and the prevalent
view that this was somehow the unavoidable and even acceptable price
of rising prosperity) was a scar on British society.
After all, no one had any doubt
about the impact of poverty on a child’s life. We are not
just talking about the short term distress of a nine year old unable
to afford to go on a school trip, or the resentment of a 12 year
old because their family can’t go on holiday again. Poverty
in childhood haunts people for the rest of their lives. Children
growing up in poverty get worse results at school, are more likely
to become teenage parents, more likely to be unemployed, and are
more likely to be parents in poverty themselves twenty years later.
They just don’t get a fair chance in life.
That is why the Labour government’s
ambition to end child poverty in a generation is so important –
and so revolutionary. It is hard to underestimate what a fundamental
shift this is in approach compared to the Conservative years.
It is a moral cause for all
those who care about injustice and unfairness. But it is also, as
the Fabian Commission has pointed out, in the interests of our economy
and our society as a whole that generations of children should not
see their talents wasted and their potential denied.
The progress we have made so
far has surprised many. One million children have been lifted out
of poverty. According to LSE academic John Hills, “The package
of support for low income working families with children is one
of the most generous in the world.”
Of course there will be challenges
ahead in sustaining that progress. We know too that it isn’t
just about income, its about the opportunity for parents to learn
and earn, and the chance for babies and children to get support
from programmes like Sure Start in the very early years of life.
Labour is addressing not just poverty but social exclusion too.
So rough sleeping is down by two thirds, families are no longer
kept in bed and breakfast accommodation, and support has increased
for those most marginalized from society.
And the evidence shows that
the extra investment is making a difference where it counts. Jane
Waldfogel’s research has shown that when parents on low income
were given extra cash they didn’t spend it on fags and booze
as the stereotype suggests. Quite the reverse. They spent the extra
money on the kids.
But where have the Conservatives
been in the debate on child poverty? We know their record. Child
poverty trebled. And this was not simply the result of indifference,
or the failure to respond to a wider economic problem. The Conservative
government actually cut child benefit in real terms. They even changed
the law to remove the duty on the government to consider an increase
in child benefit. By 1997 child benefit was still lower in real
terms than it had been in 1979. Frankly it is astonishing to believe
they could have got away with cutting support for children across
the board. It just shows how far we have come – and also perhaps
how much we already take for granted in the way the political climate
has changed.
Even today, when the Conservative
party professes a concern for public services, they still have nothing
to say about child poverty. We have heard nothing in response to
our target to abolish child poverty. Over the past few years they
have repeatedly said they would cut Sure Start, and they opposed
the introduction of tax credits. I believe that the Conservative
approach fails millions of children. It also fails society as a
whole too by denying our economy their talents, and by storing up
for society a legacy of social, health and community problems too.
2. Promoting life chances
matters.
But building social justice involves more than simply a moral crusade
against poverty. It is about more than just tackling social exclusion.
Plenty of families who feel
included in strong communities still don’t get a fair deal.
Think of the 16 year old in a close family, in a cohesive coalfield
community, who doesn’t stay on at school because it just isn’t
what she and her friends ever expected to do. After all staying
on rates in coalfield areas are significantly lower than the national
average. She isn’t excluded from society. She may not have
grown up in poverty. And in the short term she may have more cash
in her pocket than her peers in leafier suburbs who stay on in education.
But she still isn’t getting a fair deal. Her chances in life
are still dependent on where she lives, and the job her parents
do.
So I believe the Fabian Commission
in their interim report were right to argue that, “an exclusive
focus on child poverty is too narrow because it leaves out key concerns
about broader divisions and inequalities.”
It is the inherited inequalities
that cascade from generation to generation that are the most insidious
barrier to opportunity. For all that British society seemed to be
opening up in the second half of the twentieth century, the miserable
truth was that inherited inequalities were as strong as ever by
the end of the Conservative years.
So the children born in 1970
actually experienced less social mobility than those born in 1958.
Poverty in childhood was more likely to lead to poverty in adulthood
for the 1970 generation than for the earlier generation as relative
life chances actually fell.
The result is that still at
the beginning of the twenty first century, your chances in life
depend too much on your parents income. Children still do not have
equal chances in life. Social class still casts a long shadow over
British society. Children growing up on low income are still much
more likely to end up with lower qualifications, lower wage jobs,
suffering unemployment, becoming teenage parents and even dying
younger than their classmates from more affluent backgrounds. Children
from some ethnic minority groups do persistently worse at school
and in the jobs market too, even taking account of family income.
Building a fairer society means
we have to address all the barriers to opportunity that people still
face. Already Labour in government has made great strides in tackling
disadvantage and lack of opportunities, as last year’s major
Social Exclusion Unit report, “Breaking the Cycle” set
out.
Staying on rates have gone up,
along with rising education standards across the board. The gap
between the most deprived districts and the rest in education and
employment is starting to narrow. Thousands of lone parents have
been helped by the New Deal.
Under the banner of progressive
universalism, support has also been extended to widen opportunities
and life chances for those on low and average incomes as well as
those in poverty. So the Children’s Tax Credit provides the
greatest support for those on lowest income, but is a considerable
boost for average families too. Sure Start has begun in the most
deprived areas, but it covers all the children in the area, and
the new Children’s Centres will reach into every community.
Even though we know that addressing
those inherited inequalities will take at least a generation, we
are at least starting in the right place – in the early years.
We know that the gap in life chances between those growing up in
low income families and in more prosperous families is evident even
by the age of 22 months. In 1999-2000 I was involved in the Smith
Institute work with John Bynner and Heather Joshi looking at life
chances among the 1970 and 1958 generation. And their analysis reinforced
our decision at that time to pursue a substantial expansion of Sure
Start, exactly in order to boost children’s life chances.
We know however that we will not see the benefits from those extra
children helped by Sure Start for many years to come.
Promoting life chances in this
way is about more than simply a narrow view of social mobility or
equal opportunity. As the Fabian Commission set out in its interim
report; “What concerns us is not merely the fact that talented
children from income-poor backgrounds are less likely to realize
their potential than those from more affluent families, but that
all children from income-poor backgrounds are less likely to realize
their potential than those from more affluent families. The goal
therefore is to improve the experiences and opportunities for all
children and not merely to increase social mobility amongst the
most able”
I think the Fabian Society are
right to argue that a modern vision of social justice and equality
is a complex one. We have to address the persistence of poverty
and the problem of social exclusion. But we also need to widen opportunities
for the many families who are not trapped in poverty and who are
included in strong local communities, but who just aren’t
getting a fair deal. We have to tackle inequality of opportunity,
and in particular the persistence of inherited inequalities that
still cascade from one generation to the next. It isn’t enough
to simply offer escape routes for a small number of talented children
from disadvantaged backgrounds, we have to widen opportunities for
every child to fulfil their potential. That has been the Labour
approach for the past eight years, now we need to go further.
But again, where are the Conservatives
in the debate on raising life chances for all? They have made clear
their hostility to expanding numbers in higher education. They have
pledged to abolish the New Deal for lone parents – something
which is particularly destructive of life chances, because it tackles
child poverty and helps mothers back into employment and training
at the same time. Given that women on low qualifications were left
furthest behind in the social and economic changes of the Conservative
years, and given the importance of mothers education and employment
to children’s development, supporting mothers on low income
is one of the most powerful way to improve the life chances of two
generations at once. But the Conservatives have opposed it. At best
their approach to improving life chances is simply to offer a small
number of escape routes for a minority – by using taxpayers
money to subsidise their private education. At worst, they are engaged
in safeguarding the privileges of the few.
3. New challenges for
the future make this even more important
The challenges we will face over the next few years make
the need to promote life chances even more important. The pace of
change in the economy and the labour market, the nature of the modern
housing market, and the persistent legacy of deep rooted historic
attitudes and social relations pose great challenges for our society
in the future. And I believe only the Labour party is equipped to
address those challenges in the next few years.
Changes in our economy and labour
market mean the value of skills and qualifications has increased.
But that means the penalty for having no skills or qualifications
has increased too, and the risk is that those with poor education
can fall further and further behind.
The pace of demand for ever
improved qualifications, as well as changes to the structure of
the labour market can make it harder to catch up later on. So research
by the Strategy Unit suggests that the changing nature of the modern
firm, and the disappearance of many middle management jobs, means
it is now harder for people with few qualifications to work their
way up through the company from the shop floor. Those who lack a
degree by the time the enter the workforce can find it very hard
to ever break into graduate level employment through other routes.
The modern flexible economy
means we also need to draw on the talents, potential and entrepreneurship
of every individual. But too many people are still held back, both
by lack of opportunity and disadvantage, and by deeply embedded
attitudes such as lack of confidence among those on low income and
persistent prejudice on behalf of others.
The housing market too places
new pressures on society. As housing supply has not kept pace with
housing demand, house prices have increased. Changing household
formation and family break up has contributed too. Low mortgage
rates and economic growth have meant we still have over a million
more homeowners than in 1997. Nevertheless more people still want
to own their own homes. The consequence of a tightening housing
market is that while some people inside the housing market have
seen their wealth and their assets grow, others outside the housing
market are unable to afford the house they want and numbers in temporary
accommodation have grown.
4. Faced with these
kinds of challenges, government policy matters.
Faced with these kinds of challenges, government policy
matters. The wrong kind of policy response could be devastating
– not just to the life chances of the most vulnerable, but
also to the cohesion of society.
The response of the Conservative government in the eighties and
nineties was exactly that. Faced with economic change and restructuring,
they did little to support workers losing their jobs, and little
to support cities and regions devastated by job losses. Faced with
growing returns to education they did little to support widening
access to education and skills, in fact the education gap between
districts grew. Faced with widening income inequality they did nothing
to support families on low income and child poverty trebled.
No one should underestimate
the importance of continued economic growth for helping those on
lowest skills and lowest income. After all, recessions hit hardest
those with least economic power. The impact of the deep recessions
of the early eighties and nineties was to knock some workers out
of employment not just for a few months but for years at a time.
And the social consequences have been considerable too. Children
growing up in the eighties on streets where no one worked for years
at a time are now parents themselves. Those childhood disadvantages
mean they are far more likely to face family problems themselves
today. Poverty and troubles in childhood are linked with a wide
range of social problems later on, ranging from mental health to
drug related crime.
The Conservatives current policy
proposals would be equally damaging, and equally poor at addressing
the challenges we face. Cutting investment in key public services
won’t help. Oliver Letwin has said that outside schools and
hospitals, budgets would be frozen. But that would be at the expense
of adult education and training – so critical for providing
those second and third chances later on in life. More importantly
it would prevent the vital expansion of Sure Start children’s
centres, so important to improving early years.
5. So what should Labour
do now
Labour instead is determined to respond to these new challenges
in the labour and housing markets, as well as continuing to tackle
the deep rooted historic disadvantages people face. That means equipping
families to handle the pressures of a modern economy, and ensuring
the economy can make the most of each and everyone’s talents
and abilities.
In the last four lectures Alan,
David, John and Ruth have already set out key priority areas for
a Labour third term.
First and foremost it means
continuing to tackle the economic root causes of poverty and inequality
through helping people into work and cutting child poverty. After
all, for all our progress we still have a long way to go.
Secondly it means widening educational
opportunities to improve life chances for all – not just in
schools, but in those vital early years through Sure Start Children’s
Centres in every community and later on in life to supporting those
crucial second chances people need.
Thirdly it means striving ever
harder to break the link between income and wealth on the one hand,
and other kinds of life chances such as health. (In contrast to
the Conservative approach which strengthens the link by subsidizing
private operations.)
Fourthly it means continuing
to try to break the link between where you live and your chances
in life. Already the New Deal for Communities and Neighbourhood
Renewal investment are helping to narrow the gap.
6. Housing policy
But just as John talked in particular about health and
Ruth talked in particular about education, I wanted to say a little
more about wealth inequality and the housing market. The strong
links between wealth and the housing market, between owning assets
and owning your own home, mean that we have to take seriously widening
wealth inequality to prevent it becoming a brake on opportunity
in the future too.
New analysis by the Social Exclusion
Unit shows that for all our progress on other areas, wealth inequality
continues to grow. According to Shelter the top 30% of families
with children now own 50% of the nation’s housing wealth –
up from 42% in 1993. In London over a third of first time buyers
rely in part on gifts, family loans, or windfalls. Yet people’s
chance of owning their own home should not depend on whether their
parents and grandparents were homeowners before them.
Already the Child Trust Fund
is being increased. The Savings Gateway is being extended. And stamp
duty is being abolished on smaller homes.
But we need to go further. 70%
of the population now own their own homes, with over a million more
home owners since 1997, thanks to low mortgage rates and economic
stability, in contrast to the boom and bust of the housing market
in the eighties and nineties. But 90% say they want to own their
homes, yet with a tightening housing market, many can find themselves
denied the chance. Those on lower and middle incomes should not
be denied all chance to share in the value of their home, or to
get a stake in the property market.
That’s why tomorrow, the
Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister will set out new proposals
to help thousands more families buy a share in their home. Labour
will help more first time buyers, key workers and social tenants
to buy their own home, or even just to buy a share in their home
as well. This will extend home ownership opportunities for the first
time to thousands who simply cannot afford to get a foothold on
the housing ladder right now.
Unlike the Conservatives, we
believe we need to do this alongside – and not at the expense
of – more homes for those who are most vulnerable. Extending
the Right to Buy to Housing Associations, as the Conservatives want
to do, would help fewer people in the long run and would cut the
availability of social housing and increase homelessness. That is
why the new plans to sell shares in social housing are being drawn
up with safeguards for social housing, and with receipts invested
in new homes to cut homelessness instead.
And it is why we also need to
support a big expansion in housing supply as the Sustainable Communities
Plan and the Barker Review recommended. Only that way will we be
able to respond to the growing demand for housing and the growing
pressures on the regional economy too.
Cutting the housing budget by
£1 billion as the James Review has proposed, abandoning the
Thames Gateway and cutting house building across the South East
as the Conservatives have proposed, would have a very detrimental
effect on life chances for families across London and the South
East. It would restrict the affordability of housing to many families,
and would push up numbers in temporary accommodation too.
It would also badly restrain
the regional economy, and therefore the prosperity of many more
families besides. Restricting house building as the Conservatives
wish to do serves only to protect the interests of those home owners
who will see their house prices continue to rise, and who are wealthy
enough to be insulated from the wider pressures affecting the regional
economy too.
Promoting home ownership is
often seen as being about aspirations. It is. But it is also about
addressing unfair inequalities. And when done alongside expanding
housing supply and improving access to social housing too, it forms
a vital part of a programme to widen life chances for all.
7. And we need to build
that progressive consensus
Finally, as the Fabian Commission has made clear, and as
David set out in the first lecture of this series, we need to entrench
the battle against poverty and unjust inequalities in a new political
settlement.
After eight years in government
I believe Labour has already changed the debate about poverty and
social exclusion in Britain. Ten years ago, Conservative politicians
now regarded as relatively moderate, were still able to attack and
vilify those who were most disadvantaged. Remember Peter Lilley
on the subject of single parents or Sir George Young on the subject
of rough sleepers? Now even the most right wing Conservative politicians
and commentators dare not publicly propose slashing Children’s
Tax Credits, Sure Start or action to address social exclusion.
It is a sign of how far the
Conservative party think the consensus in the country has changed
that Michael Howard has been so neurotic in response to Howard Flights
statement of what is widely believed to be the reality behind their
plans. Yet even the Conservatives recognize that the public have
no appetite for a return to Thatcherism.
Of course the Fabian Society
is right that there is still limited awareness among the wider public
about the progress made and the challenges remaining in cutting
child poverty. But when faced with the evidence, people do support
action to cut poverty and improve children’s chances in life.
We have not yet gone far enough.
Just as we have more to do to address poverty and unjust inequality
in Britain, we have more to do to build a progressive consensus
of support around our programme too.
It shouldn’t just be in
the months before an election that Tories fear to mention cutting
public spending. It shouldn’t just be when seeking votes that
they fear to criticize support for families.
The 1945 Labour government built
an NHS that the Conservatives have feared to challenge for decades.
So the next Labour government needs to extend the welfare state
to the under 5s, so that the very ethos of our welfare state and
our public institutions is to tackle disadvantage in the very young
and to give every child from the very beginning the very best start
in life.
The NHS has served to nurture
and sustain the values of fairness and equity which underpinned
its very establishment in the first place – that health care
should be provided according to need and not ability to pay. Similarly
we need our Children’s Centres to embody and embed important
values of fairness – promoting the life chances of every child.
Politicians of the right should fear to cut the children’s
centres of the future, just as today they fear to admit to cuts
in the NHS because they know the strength of public feeling.
And we need to build a consensus
across the country in support of cutting child poverty and widening
life chances for all. We still need to do more to persuade people
that the inequalities we face undermine social justice for all of
us. Giving every child a fair chance in life is an imperative for
every modern civilized society.
I believe this is a cause which
should command broad support across society. After all it is about
improving opportunities for the many, not preserving the privileges
of the few. It taps into people’s aspirations for themselves
and their families, their desire to learn, to create and to get
on. But it also reflects people’s sense of responsibility
to their community and to others, and the moral sense that everyone
should be treated with equal respect, and no one should be unfairly
excluded from the opportunities and life chances that others take
for granted. Furthermore it helps us to address the economic challenges
we face, by promoting the talents and creativity of all our citizens.
And it helps reduce the difficult social consequences of a divided
and distressed society too.
In the last eight years, the Labour government has made great strides
in tackling many of the worst aspects of poverty and inequality
in modern Britain. But we still have much to do. Our challenge now
is to forge a third term programme, and a political cause for the
nation based on sustaining that progress. This is our chance to
build a society in which individuals receive equal respect and children
gain from equal opportunities and life chances and in which the
cycle of disadvantage from generation to generation is truly broken.
|
