POLICY BRIEFING Civil Society, Fairness Commissions and Poverty Reduction

Transcription

1 Civil Society, Fairness Commissions and Poverty Reduction 2 July 2014 Andrew Jones LGiU associate Summary In May 2014 the Webb Memorial Trust (WMT) published two reports on approaches to tackling poverty and inequality in the UK. The first of these: Approaches to Reducing Poverty and Inequality in the UK: A Study of Civil Society Initiatives and Fairness Commissions examines approaches and initiatives by civil society and Fairness Commissions. The Second, Agency in Austerity: A Study of Fairness Commission in Reducing Poverty and Inequality in the UK (pdf file) provides more detail about Fairness Commissions and enlarges on the section on Fairness Commissions in the first report. Fairness Commissions are in nearly all cases local authority-led initiatives concerned with tackling poverty in the context of severe spending cuts. They are at different stages of development, but many have published reports detailing local conditions and proposing solutions. The WMT reports contain details on the processes of setting up Fairness Commissions, their strengths and weaknesses, common themes in issues addressed, and progress in implementing solutions. The reports will be of interest to members and officers in all types of authority with an interest in poverty reduction, strategy, and civil society. Briefing in full Background In May 2014 the Webb Memorial Trust (WMT) published two reports on approaches to tackling poverty and inequality in the UK. The first of these: Approaches to Reducing Poverty and Inequality in the UK: A Study of Civil Society Initiatives and Fairness Commissions examines approaches and initiatives by civil society and Fairness Commissions. The Second, Agency in Austerity: A Study of

2 Fairness Commission in Reducing Poverty and Inequality in the UK (pdf file) provides more detail about Fairness Commissions and enlarges on the section on Fairness Commissions in the first report. Fairness Commissions are in nearly all cases local authority-led initiatives. Both reports were commissioned by The All-Party-Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Poverty. The APPG Poverty, Webb Memorial Trust, and The New Statesman hosted an event in the House of Commons on 6th May to launch the report on civil society and Fairness Commissions at which Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society, gave a keynote speech. A supplementary report, produced by the Webb Memorial Trust and the New Statesman, is available here. The APPG Poverty also hosted a discussion meeting for Fairness Commissions in November The research underpinning the civil society and Fairness Commission reports was undertaken by Paul Bunyan and John Diamond at Edge Hill University on behalf of the APPG Poverty. The research entailed face-to-face interviews with Fairness Commissioner Chairs, on-line surveys with Fairness Commissioners and civil society organisations, and analysis of documents. The officers and members of the APPG Poverty are listed on the APPG s website as: Chair: Kate Green MP (Labour) Vice Chair: Chris White MP (Conservative) Treasurer: Baroness Maeve Sherlock (Labour, House of Lords) Rt. Rev. David Urquhart (Bishop, House of Lords) The APPG Poverty also lists Paul Goggins MP (Labour) as secretary, but Paul Goggins died in January The nature of civil society initiative Civil society is understood as encompassing three interrelated dimensions or perspectives as the world of associational life, as the good society, and in the public sphere. Civil society is most commonly understood in terms of the associational life. It is the myriad of groups and institutions within society, which are distinct from the state and market, and founded on the basis of voluntary association. They include faith groups, community organisations, sports clubs, NGOs, charities, and unions. Civil society as associational life encompasses the ways in which is it responds directly to need in addressing poverty. This includes:- Individual acts of kindness, generosity and charitable giving The work of volunteers in charities, for example in foodbanks (see related briefings).

3 The work of third sector organisations in advice to people in poverty on welfare benefits and debt. The work of faith groups such as the Salvation Army, the Catholic Society of St Vincent de Paul (SVP) and Muslim Aid. Civil society understood as the good society encompasses the production of ideas and analyses aimed at establishing a fairer society. Examples of agencies doing this include the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which has investigated the causes of and solutions to poverty for over a century. This type of activity raises awareness about the causes of poverty and ideas for potential solutions Civil society understood as the public sphere refers to the ways in which civil society organisations develop the power and legitimacy to engage in the political realm. Examples of civil society organisations which adopt an overtly political approach include Citizens UK, which uses community organising to harness the power of local associational and institutional life in order to engage politically. It is argued that there are ways in which civil society organisations might more effectively tackle poverty and inequality in the future. Firstly, the capacity for civil society to effectively address poverty is weakened to the extent that the dimensions of civil society operate in isolation from each other. For example, a strategy which focuses solely on individual agency and charitable giving, but pays little attention to the structural nature of poverty and the need for engagement in the political sphere is less likely to lead to sustainable and long term solutions. Similarly, a coherent and rational argument about how best to tackle poverty, or a vision of the good society divorced from a political strategy or local institutional support, will lack roots and legitimacy. Poverty is most effectively addressed when strategies are employed that encompass all of the dimensions of civil society. However, civil society, it is argued, needs to remain at arms length from electoral party politics and to be wary when government prescribes the role of civil society and its relationship to state and market. Whilst electoral democracy represents an important prerequisite for a more civil and just society, it is no guarantee of it. The challenge for civil society is in developing the power and political capacity of civil society organisations. Finally, it argued that that civil society needs to become more radical in the approaches and strategies it adopts. There should be a greater emphasis on political engagement and campaigning. It is argued that the Living Wage campaign, started in 2001 by Citizens UK and its main affiliate London Citizens, represents one of the most successful civil society-led initiatives to reduce poverty in recent years and provides an excellent example of a strategy which encompasses the three dimensions of civil society.

4 Fairness Commissions POLICY BRIEFING See related briefings for an earlier overview of Fairness Commissions. Since 2010, Fairness Commissions have been set up in a number of cities and areas across the UK. According to the WMT report, to date such commissions have been initiated in Islington, Liverpool, York, Newcastle, Sheffield, Blackpool, Tower Hamlets, Newport, Plymouth, Bristol, Oldham and Southampton. Similar initiatives have also taken place in Camden (Camden Equality Taskforce), Manchester (Greater Manchester Poverty Commission) and Birmingham (Giving Hope, Changing Lives). Fairness Commissions are, for the most part, local authority-led initiatives. A number of have been instigated by the leader or a lead member of the elected ruling group of the council. This has been the case in Islington, Newcastle, Sheffield, Newport and Liverpool. Local MPs took the initiative in the creation of the Manchester Poverty Commission. Whilst many of the commissions have been initiated by members of the council, different approaches have been taken to the direct involvement of councillors on the commissions themselves. Some commissions have had a number of councillors directly involved as commissioners, for example Islington and Camden, whilst others, including Newcastle, Tower Hamlets, York and Plymouth, have chosen not to involve elected members directly. The number of commissioners differs, ranging from six in York, twenty-four in Sheffield, to over a hundred in Blackpool. A good balance of commissioners from a variety of sectors and a strong chair were identified as being important to the success of commissions. Most of the commissions have followed a Parliamentary Select Committee model, meaning that they are enquiry-based, taking evidence and producing a final report. Evidence and information has been gathered in a number of ways including public meetings, listening exercises, themed select committee style meetings, walkabouts, street surveys, web-based surveys and expert presentations. Public sector austerity and the squeeze on living standards provide the context and the catalyst for many of these initiatives. Most of the commissions that have reported so far comment on the wider social, political and economic context and the challenges presented in addressing poverty and inequality at a time of severe and unprecedented public cuts. Stark inequalities within areas are highlighted. The commissions are at various stages of development. A number have published reports and are implementing recommendations. The WMT reports contain a list of some of the key themes and recommendations for tackling poverty and inequality from Fairness Commission reports published to date, although it is cautioned that it is difficult to provide a comprehensive picture and analysis of recommendations as a whole.

5 Examples include: 1. The Living Wage: The Living Wage has figured prominently in many of the reports. Islington, where the first Fairness Commission took place, became the first local authority to become an accredited Living Wage employer. One of the headline recommendations in the York report advocated to make York a Living Wage city and Dr John Sentamu, who was patron of the York Fairness Commission, has since launched the Living Wage Commission, a national independent inquiry into the future of the Living Wage. 2. Pay differentials: Many of the Fairness Commission reports highlight wide disparities in income between the wealthiest and poorest households across their cities and areas. Islington cut the pay of its Chief Executive by 50,000 and in conjunction with implementing the Living Wage brought down the pay differential ratio between the highest and lowest paid employees to 1:10 3. Debt and credit: In the Tower Hamlets report there was a recommendation for the government and the financial services sector to support the development of the credit union sector to provide an alternative to payday loans and competitive banking services for people on low incomes. The York and Islington Commissions recommended the introduction of a by-law restricting the activities of payday loan companies. 4. Increasing job opportunities for local people: In Liverpool, it was recommended that the city set measurable targets for the creation of new local business and social enterprises with a clear strategy and action plan to monitor and publish performance against the targets. In Islington it was recommended that employers should increase the proportion of local people they employ. 5. Tackling youth unemployment: In Tower Hamlets there was a recommendation for local businesses, especially the large businesses based in Canary Wharf, to effect a step change in their engagement with local people, guaranteeing to provide 25 per cent of work experience placements every year and committing to increasing apprenticeship and other local employment opportunities. In Sheffield a city-wide programme of work trials, placements and apprenticeships for young people was proposed. 6. Targeted support for mothers: In Camden there was a proposal for the council to work with all employers to develop a targeted package of employment support to mothers, especially for those groups such as Bangladeshi and Somali women with particularly low rates of employment. 7. Health: Whilst health was identified as a key issue and area of concern in many fairness commission reports, recommendations tended to be quite general. In York one of the headline recommendations called for greater and more integrated provision of preventative and community based health and social care services, particularly in addressing services for the elderly and the

6 large gap in life expectancy. In the Sheffield report mental health was highlighted as a key issue. 8. Housing: Housing was identified as a key issue in all the reports, particularly in London. In the Camden Equality Taskforce report a number of recommendations focused on what government should do. They included a London living rent, ensuring newly developed homes do not stand empty; and supporting affordable house building through relaxing borrowing rules for local authorities. In Islington there was a proposal to bring empty space into residential use by eliminating empty space above shops. 9. Internet Access: In the Tower Hamlets report there was a recommendation for a partnership to be developed in which local universities and the creative digital industries, took the lead in making free access to wireless internet universal across the borough. 10.Reducing energy bills: The Greater Manchester Poverty Commission recommended that the Greater Manchester local authorities and Housing Associations should assess the feasibility of becoming an affordable energy provider. 11.Food banks: In Sheffield there was a recommendation that the city should support food banks and other providers of emergency food relief. 12.Enhancing democracy: In Newcastle there was a recommendation to encourage voter registration and increase the number of voters, with a target to significantly increase the number of votes cast in elections. The Fairness Commission model, it is stated, has a number of advantages. It is: Time-limited Relatively inexpensive Fairly swift as a means for raising awareness of issues. In many cases Fairness Commissions have generated compelling evidence and information about the issues affecting people and the impact of poverty and inequality in cities and areas across the UK. The duration of the commissions varied from twelve to eighteen months from starting the process to producing a final report. However, some commissioners thought this timetable was too short. However, there are also potential drawbacks. Although the process of identifying problems and making recommendations is relatively swift, the process of implementing recommendations is much more complex and protracted. It is made harder where recommendations are too general or too ambitious, as has been the case, it is argued, in a number of reports. What happens after commissions have reported and published their recommendations is sometimes unclear, particularly in terms of what the next stages of the process will entail and who will carry them out. The continued involvement of commissioners beyond publication of the report is

7 likely to vary and this raises questions about sustainability. The extent to which partnership and consensus alone can deliver the change that is required to significantly reduce poverty and inequality is questioned by the report s authors. It is stated that Islington (the first Fairness Commission) provides a good example of where a set of achievable recommendations were identified and for the most part implemented. Since the publication of the commission s report in 2011 it has implemented a number of recommendations, including: The Living Wage Action on Pay Ratios Advice: The local authority established the first new Citizens Advice Bureau in London for 20 years which now has an estimated 1000 users each month Islington Giving: A scheme to encourage Islington residents to give time and money as a way of tackling poverty and inequality in the borough was created; to date 2 million has been raised and 500 volunteers recruited. The following benefits for the council in undertaking the Fairness Commission were highlighted as: Providing Islington Council with clarity and simplicity of definition: people know what the Council is about and what it stands for Putting flesh on the bones on fairness in austerity Providing a rationale for the tough decisions the council has to make Enabling the council to exercise influence outside of its authority. A number of commissioners highlighted the independence (non-partisan in party politics) of many of the commissions as one of the main strengths of the commission process. Collaborative working across sectors is also identified as an advantage. However, the important question, in the authors view, is about which structure best generates the necessary political traction and power to bring about change. Whilst there are benefits for commissions to be seen at arm s length from party political influence, there is an equally strong argument to be made for key politicians to be involved in the commission process, not least to be held directly accountable for progress made. It is pointed out that whether or not elected councillors sit as commissioners, in most cases commissions were initiated and supported by the council with an expectation that councils would act on the recommendations made. Public participation was seen as central to the Fairness Commission process but engagement varied across commissions. The extent to which many commissions have increased democratic activity within their areas is questioned and this indicates a potential weakness in the commission model.

8 The Plymouth Fairness Commission is singled out as a good example of a creative and innovative approach to ensuring that public involvement was prioritised. In the summer of 2013, a number of events were organised, including: Walkabouts in six different areas of the city, allowing commissioners to hear directly residents views and experiences A total of 27 satellite meetings held with a range of organisations A series of listening events for members of the public to drop-in to meet some of the Commissioners, share the issues that affect them, and put forward suggestions to make Plymouth a fairer place. A street survey, which collected views from 151 Plymouth residents through face-to-face street surveys Expert presentations on topics such as the role of public funding and the negative impact of inequality for all members of society. The facilitation of 7 panel-led discussions between professionals, academics and the public on themes including financial inclusion, mental health, food, skills and business, housing, dementia and isolation, and local procurement. Conclusions and recommendations A series of recommendations are made for increasing the capacity of civil society organisations to reduce poverty and inequality in the UK. In terms of some of the overarching themes emerging from the study, the analysis highlighted a need to co-ordinate and scale up efforts and to develop more adversarial-based (alongside consensus-based) approaches to social and political change. The requirement to scale up and co-ordinate local efforts was a theme that emerged through surveys in the civil society research. The recommendations in this theme include: 1. The APPG Poverty should host a seminar to explore whether and how the various networks and initiatives in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be coordinated and scaled up to form a national alliance 2. An Assembly for Tackling Poverty and Inequality in the UK to be established to examine the potential for a UK-wide Poverty Alliance 3. Lessons learned from the first Challenge Poverty Week led by the Poverty Alliance in Scotland last year to be explored along with the possibilities for this initiative to be extended to other parts of the UK 4. The Association of Charitable Foundations to host a meeting on how they could strategically and collaboratively support a UK-wide Poverty Alliance. There are some specific recommendations for scaling up the Living Wage Campaign, as follows:

9 1. Key civil society organisations to become accredited Living Wage employers/ contractors and to take the lead in lobbying public, private and other civil society organisations to become accredited Living Wage employers/ contractors 2. All local authorities where Fairness Commissions have been established to implement the Living Wage for those they directly employ and to work with the Living Wage Foundation to become accredited Living Wage employers/ contractors 3. Where Fairness Commissions have been established, the council should publish, on an annual basis, the pay differential ratio between the highest and lowest paid employees 4. Universities to follow the lead taken by the National Union of Students to implement the Living Wage for those they directly employ and to work with the Living Wage Foundation to become accredited Living Wage employers/ contractors 5. The APPG on Poverty to encourage MPs to champion the case for the Living Wage within their constituencies and to ensure that businesses and organisations that become accredited Living Wage employers receive public recognition. Also, MPs to be challenged to ensure they are Living Wage employers/contractors themselves. It is argued that there is potential for action to be taken on inequality, in particular around lowering the ratio of pay differentials between the highest and lowest paid employees within organisations. Two further recommendations follow from this: 1. The Webb Memorial Trust to consider commissioning a study into the ratio of pay differentials across different sectors of employment in the UK 2. The output from the proposed study to be made available to wider civil society to explore whether there is scope for a campaign (similar to the 1:12 referendum campaign in Switzerland) focusing upon lowering the ratio of pay differentials in private, public and third sector organisations in the UK. (Note: Switzerland practices direct democracy more than any other nation in the world. Referendums, which can be either mandatory or optional on the basis of proposals backed by petition, are frequent. Eleven referendums were held at the national level in Switzerland during Among these were proposals to limit the executive pay of companies listed on the stock market, and to increase shareholders' say in corporate governance. The proposals on corporate governance and the banning of one off bonuses were accepted. The so-called 1:12 proposal would have limited top executive pay to 12 times that of the lowest paid employee in the company, but was rejected. According to an article in the Independent (see here) the yes campaign spent SFr200,000 but the no campaign spent SFr8 million.) There have been suggestions for the creation of a Fairness Commission network. The authors argue that a broader UK-wide anti-poverty alliance which could encompass the work of Fairness Commissions would be more effective. There is

10 nonetheless a recommendation for an annual Fairness Commission Convention convened by an independent Charitable Trust or Foundation. There are some other specific recommendations for Fairness Commissions, as follows: 1. The Webb Memorial Trust and the APPG Poverty to continue to assess the impact of Fairness Commissions to explore how Fairness Commissions could inform a broader anti-poverty initiative 2. The Local Government Association to encourage their members to adopt the principles of the Fairness Commission model outlined in the report and highlight examples of good practice 3. Fairness implementation groups should be established tasked with ensuring that the recommendations of the Fairness Commission are carried out 4. Where Fairness Commissions have been created, a poverty and inequality portfolio should be established, with the elected member with portfolio responsibility working closely with the implementation groups. It is argued that the 2015 General Election will provide an opportunity to develop an agenda for change which includes issues on poverty and inequality. Citizens UK has organised large public assemblies, known as Accountability Assemblies, which seek to hold candidates for elected office to account for progress made and to obtain undertakings about what they would do if elected. It is recommended that in areas where Fairness Commissions have been established a public event or assembly is organised at which the issues identified through the Fairness Commission process are raised. It is recommended that civil society representatives from various Fairness Commissions access Citizens UK training in the months leading up to the General Election. Finally, there are six recommendations for national governmental agencies and departments and leading national organisations. 1. To invite the ESRC and the AHRC to prioritise research funds to support the development of a network of academics and charitable organisations to provide independent advice and analysis 2. The NCVO to support the formation of a National Assembly for Tackling Poverty and Inequality 3. The Office for Civil Society to take a lead in ensuring ministerial involvement at the first Assembly for Tackling Poverty and Inequality in the UK 4. The Office for Civil Society to commission research into the impact of the initiatives led by local government agencies to reduce poverty and inequality 5. The leaders of the existing city regions to support the dissemination of examples of good practice outlined in the report 6. The Office for Civil Society to take the lead across Whitehall in promoting the recommendations of the Fairness Commissions with specific reference to health, housing and youth unemployment.

11 Comment POLICY BRIEFING For councils considering setting up a Fairness Commission, both of the reports deserve careful reading. Personal visits to councils where Fairness Commissions have been established for some time as part of the preparatory process should also be considered. It is clear from the reports that commissioners involved in the process have found the experience to be useful and rewarding. However, the main pitfalls are in implementation and maintaining the momentum established by the process. As the report s authors point out, in most cases commissions were initiated and supported by the council with an expectation that councils would act on the recommendations made. The reports suggest that the conclusions and recommendations arrived at by the Fairness Commissions are wide ranging and quite difficult to summarise. This in turn suggests the commissions have been responsive to local conditions and needs and to local priorities as identified by the commissioners and through the engagement process. Possibly, this is an aspect which has not been sufficiently emphasised in the report. The form of the Fairness Commission, the priority issues it identifies, and the processes it operates need to be shaped by local actors and to be seen to be doing so. Related Briefings Update on Food Banks Fairness Commissions The Living Wage and Local Authorities For more information about this, or any other LGiU member briefing, please contact Janet Sillett, Briefings Manager, on janet.sillett@lgiu.org.uk