Social Murder?: Austerity and Life Expectancy in the UK

Life expectancy has increased in the UK more or less constantly for more than a century. Around 2012, this all stopped, and among poorer populations, it actually went in reverse. In some parts of the UK, the change to premature mortality rates (death under the age of 65 years) has been nothing short of astonishing. This is the starting premise of David Walsh and Gerry McCartney's new book, Social Murder? Austerity and Life Expectancy in the UK. 

The authors, from the University of Glasgow, demonstrate how evidence shows that these extraordinary changes to life expectancy and mortality rates have been mainly caused by UK government policies implemented in 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. This is all carefully evidenced, showing what happened, when it changed and who was most affected. While we often bandy around the word austerity, the scale of the cuts to UK government spending is poorly understood. By 2019, annual spending was down by around £91 billion compared to pre-austerity levels. To put that in context, that’s more than the GDP of entire countries like Croatia, Bulgaria and even Oman. Over the period 2010–19, the cuts add up to a total reduction of approximately £540 billion. These are changes on an extraordinary level.

While the authors provide a mass of statistical and other data to make a case that was downplayed by many public health organisations, they also tell the stories of how austerity impacted individuals through case studies. These also show how the coalition government introduced a policy of vilification and demonisation of people in receipt of social security benefits. One case study highlights the impact on so many, "Moira was now terminally ill. But even that was not enough to satisfy the DWP. One of her daughters, Nichole, was told in a ‘cruel and heartless’ phone call that they would not believe Moira was terminally ill unless they were told by a doctor that she only had a few weeks left to live. They had requested evidence from the general practitioner (GP), they said. The GP told Nichole they had received no such request. In August 2015, one month after her cancer diagnosis, Moira died. She was 61 years old."

There are also startling non-public health statistics that illustrate the arguments. For example, in 2010/11, the Trussell Trust, the largest food bank provider in the UK, had only 35 food banks across England; by 2019/20, they had almost 1,300.

They don't deny the impact of other factors on life expectancy, such as COVID-19, obesity, and inflation. However, they point out that the trends pre-dated COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis - austerity made them worse. As with the title from an apt Friedrich Engels quote, they don't mince words, "Put more bluntly, poverty kills. And austerity has increased poverty levels in the UK." Austerity kills through physical and mental illness, and children are impacted the most. The book also looks at the international evidence, showing that the greater the austerity implemented by those governments, the worse the life expectancy and mortality trends. They also criticise public health agencies – most notably PHE and the WHO, for not raising the alarm that austerity policies were causing life expectancy to stop improving overall and causing it to fall rapidly in the most deprived communities, which they argue 'is a dereliction of duty', and lessons need to be learned.

If mortality rates are to improve, the new UK Labour government and other governments worldwide must understand the evidence, quickly reverse the erosion of public services and social security systems and protect those at greatest risk. The authors conclude, "If poverty in a wealthy country is a political choice, as Philip Alston so eloquently pointed out, then so too is no poverty. It is not only within the gift of our political leaders to achieve this: it is surely their moral obligation." It is not just governments; we all have a responsibility: "To really change our politics we need to be active citizens: building campaigns and protests; creating and supporting institutions and organisations that can help."

The recent budget was a start, as the impact analysis below is the reverse of the austerity years. However, as I argued in my Budget blog, this direction change must be sustained. If you want the evidence, look no further than this excellent book.

Why the robot workplace damages workers and their organisations

Obsessive and unnecessary recording and reporting at work increases costs and places undue stress on staff. Coupled with new monitoring systems, workers are being turned into robots, before they are actually replaced by them.

Two different discussions with members, one private sector employer and another in an NDPB (quango), highlighted for me the waste that can develop when employers allow reporting systems to spiral out of control.

The story was similar in both organisations. Workers told me that they spend a quarter and a third of their time providing reports on what they are doing, in different formats, to different parts of the management structure. The main departments responsible for generating these reporting demands have grown exponentially, while front line staff are under huge pressure, coping with increased demands on delivering the service.

(Drakalogia)

What particularly irritates staff in the NDPB, is that they take the same data and have to input it into the computer system and then put parts of the same data into two different spreadsheets. There is no smart systems working, or any indication that management have any insight into the waste this approach causes.

Looking at the annual reports of both organisations, I can see no qualitative evidence that all this reporting has had any noticeable impact on their public reporting. It is a regular feature of Audit Scotland reports that there is insufficient data to judge this and that. In the public sector this is sometimes used as an excuse for expanding data collection. It's a point we often make in response to Audit Scotland reports and something they ought to reflect on.

Taking this one step further, we have John Harris in the Guardian writing about a novel and new film on the fictional (for now) Circle Corporation, whose leaders want privacy and autonomy to count for almost nothing. Workers are under constant monitoring and a system of endless appraisal by their peers, who feed into a system called Participation Rank – or PartiRank, for short.

The details of their online and offline lives are judged according to “an algorithim-generated number” that measures their activity. “It’s just for fun,” a company high heidyin tells the story’s principal character. But, of course, it isn’t, it's just one more example of the passive-aggressive ways of Silicon Valley that appears to be spreading to Scotland.

Both my examples involve administrative jobs. However, similar intrusive work monitoring takes place in the huge warehouses run by online retail giants, and driver deliveries. Sports Direct and Amazon are well known examples, and there was a story last week that one in ten workers in another retail warehouse had been so ill that they had to be sent to A&E.

I have long been irritated at the use of the phrase 'human capital'. It's as if HR departments feel they need some numbers to put them on a par with the finance department. Even I had a phone call the other day from a company wondering why I hadn't taken up their invitation to 'get on board' with the 'science' of HR metrics. After a five minute lecture from me about the difference between people and robots, they probably regretted the call! I see one company is trying to sell robots to undertake care tasks. I am sure our long suffering elderly care service users, just can't wait for this quality interaction!

The latest buzz highlighted by Harris is 'people analytics'. Some systems are straightforwardly intrusive: Worksnaps, takes repeated screenshots of workers’ computers, count their mouse-clicks and take webcam images. BetterWorks uses a Facebook-like application that depends on employees publicly posting their supposed workplace goals, and regularly issuing “cheers” and “nudges” to their colleagues. “In the office of the future,” says the chief executive of the company responsible, “you will always know what you are doing and how fast you are doing it". I can't wait!

There are now tracking apps for phones that can log the whereabouts of staff 24 hours a day. A US-based company called Humanyze (really!) is working with British businesses including a high street bank and the consulting firm Deloitte, as well as parts of the NHS. They say: “Humanyze’s badge can track physical activities in real time, capture ‘nonlinguistic social signals such as interest and excitement’ without recording actual words, locate wearers and their proximity to other wearers, and communicate with other electronic devices.”

Harris concludes: "Judging by the way the idea is sold, the people responsible, for reasons that speak volumes about the tech world’s endless naivety, they see it as a kind of super-efficient utopia. Anyone with a grasp of what makes us human should surely recognise it for what it is: Stasi capitalism, apparently furthering its dominance at a terrifying speed, with only the faintest murmurs of protest."

There is another way for those employers who recognise that their workforce consists of diverse talented individuals who want to do a good job. A study by the ILM has found that more than half (53%) of employees would consider leaving their job if the structure and culture of their organisation didn't change. According to the research, lack of employee empowerment is the root cause of much dissatisfaction in the workplace.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of staff surveyed said they wanted more freedom in their roles, but a third (34%) said their work was overly regulated, and that they were forced to work within overly controlled structures. 64% of staff surveyed said they struggled to do 'fit in' with their organisation. Despite two-thirds (66%) of employees wanting to have a greater say in their everyday working lives, just 24% said they felt their line managers fostered collaboration.

John Yates, group director at ILM, said overly authoritarian workplaces should be “a thing of the past, people today want to work for flexible, fun and friendly organisations. Organisations need to be flexible, allowing employees to pursue career ambitions and manage conflicting home life pressures as much as possible, and encourage creativity – injecting passion and new ideas into the workplace.”

I can think of a growing number of organisations that need to recognise this and change their systems, behaviours and culture - urgently!

Blog Action Day - defending human rights.

As a trade unionist in a country like Scotland I take communicating with others and expressing myself freely for granted. It is central to living in an open and fair society. However, across the globe fellow trade unionists do not have the same freedoms and it is those comrades that we should salute on Blog Action Day.

Governments pay lip service to ‘free speech’ in almost every constitution in the world, some even sign up to international conventions like the ILO. However, the reality isn't so free. Across the world trade unionists are thrown into prison, or worse, for speaking out. As Amnesty International puts it; "Our right to seek, receive and share information and ideas, without fear or unlawful interference, is crucial for our education, to develop as individuals, help our communities, access justice, and enjoy all our other rights."

Let's look at some examples.

Trade unions in Colombia were until around 1990 among the strongest in Latin America. However the 1980s expansion of paramilitarism in Colombia saw trade union leaders and members increasingly targeted for assassination, and as a result Colombia has been the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists for several decades. Between 1986 and 2010 over 4000 were killed according to one source. Most assassinations were carried out by paramilitaries or the Colombian military; some were carried out by the guerrillas. By 2009 only around 4% of workers in Colombia were unionised.

Amnesty has recently reported that four other trade unionists and retired military officers close to opposition groups were arrested in Conakry, Guinea, between 4-6 October, days before the contested 11 October presidential elections. They have been charged with contempt of the head of state and defamation - something I do almost daily on Twitter and Facebook, as well as in this blog!

Ismail Abdi, Secretary General of Iran’s Teachers’ Trade Association (ITTA), has been detained in Tehran's Evin Prison since 27 June this year for "organising and participating in illegal gatherings” for his legitimate trade unionist activities. Again, organising meetings like this is something I would take for granted. In September 2015 trade unionist and prisoner of conscience Shahrokh Zaman, died in Iranian custody.

On April 21 2014 the Turkish police burst into a peaceful gathering of trade union representatives who were organising their activities for May 1 in a hotel near Taksim Square, Istanbul. The police intervened with tear gas & shields, injuring people and 12 DISK union members were detained. The ETUC condemned the ongoing violations of trade union and human rights in Turkey and called on the Government to abide by International Labour Organisation conventions which they have signed.

UNISON Scotland's Stephen Smellie recently reported in the Morning Star on his visit to Kurdish areas of Turkey where trade unionists are under physical attack, he said:

"Sometimes international solidarity is more than passing motions at conferences and signing petitions on social media. The Turkish trade unions are in a struggle with an anti-trade union government that uses war against its own citizens for electoral advantage."

Finally, the U.K. government's Trade Union Bill illustrates why we should not be complacent nearer to home. Plans include the criminalising of some picketing activity, and even controls over blogs, Twitter and Facebook activity during disputes. A Tory MP has described these plans as reminiscent of Franco's Spain. In addition, Government plans to repeal the Human Rights Act are not only a threat to our liberties in the UK, but they also send a shocking message to illiberal regimes across the world.

So, on Blog Action Day let's support those who stand up for human rights in countries were they put themselves in real physical danger. And defend human rights in the UK from those who seek to curb our liberties. #raiseyourvoice

 

In defence of the Human Rights Act

Abolishing the Human Rights Act would diminish the UK's standing in the eyes of the world, and Scotland should use every means at its disposal to resist these Tory plans.

I was at yesterday's Scottish Government event on human rights in Glasgow at which the First Minister gave one of the best articulations of the case for the Human Rights Act that I have heard for a long time. As Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: 'I've been waiting a long time for a senior politician in power to make a speech like that'.

Nicola Sturgeon argued that repealing the HRA would be a monumental mistake, damage our reputation overseas. There are already countries across the world who are using the UK government's position to justify not implementing human rights decisions, including Egypt and Russia. Winston Churchill, the post war driving force behind universal human rights, would indeed be appalled.

The UK was one of the first to ratify the treaty with cross party support. That support was largely sustained when a Labour Government introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998. I am not always positive about Tony Blair, but this is a legacy we can all be proud of. As Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday, human rights are not always convenient for governments. They are not meant to be, they are there to defend the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed.

She gave some very clear commitments on how the Scottish Government will respond. She will claim that the legislation requires a Legislative Consent Motion, which the Scottish Parliament is unlikely to grant. It has been suggested that the UK government may seek to get around this by excluding Scotland. However, she said that there will be no deal at Westminster and under no circumstances will she treat this as an English matter - human rights are universal rights.

She also used human rights as another reason why her government was opposing the Trade Union Bill. The proposals have been criticised by Liberty, Amnesty International and the British Institute of Human Rights who said in a joint statement:

"It is hard to see the aim of this bill as anything but seeking to undermine the rights of all working people. We owe so many of our employment protections to trade unions and we join them in opposing this bill."

I followed this point up in questions asking in what practical ways did she think the Scottish Government and public bodies can use their HRA duties to oppose or not cooperate with the Bill?

The First Minister said they would oppose the Bill, using all their powers and there would be no voluntary cooperation. She also said they would seek to amend the Scotland Act to devolve employment rights to the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Government's support for the campaign is very welcome and reflects their approach to industrial relations through the Fair Work Convention. I also agree that employment rights should be devolved although even if Labour changed its position, which I would urge them to do, it still doesn't deliver a Westminster majority. A more practical measure would be to require a Legislative Consent Motion as the First Minister committed to doing for the HRA. The Welsh Government has already led the way on this and I simply don't understand the Scottish Government's unwillingness to explicitly take a similar stance.

We all too often take the human rights we enjoy in this country for granted. Even allowing fringe legal decisions to let the narrative drift away from the essential purpose of the Human Rights Act. The First Minister is to be commended for her strong defence of human rights. The Trade Union Bill will be a test of how far we are all prepared to go to defend our essential liberties.

 

 

Developing a human rights culture in Scotland

Creating a human rights culture in Scotland is challenging in the current environment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing more to embed them in public service delivery.

I was speaking at the Human Rights Consortium Scotland (HRCS) conference in Glasgow today, 'Delivering Human Rights - A Constitution for Scotland?'. My contribution was on the culture of human rights in Scotland.

Sadly, the short answer to the question posed is that we don't have an embedded human rights culture in Scotland. Most of the organisations our members work in have statutory responsibilities under the legislation, but most staff would have only a vague understanding of what this means. This understanding is stronger in professions like police, social work and nursing - but limited elsewhere. As the work of the HMRC has shown, this reflects a wider ambivalence and misunderstanding amongst the wider public. Daft media coverage doesn't help as evidenced in the 2012 study by the University of Glasgow.

Specific measures, awareness and capacity building are not widespread and in a recent consultation few members were aware of recent initiatives such as the SHRC National Action Plan on human rights. Our experience of impact assessments is that they have too often become tick box exercises, completed after the key decisions have been made. For example, there is some mitigation of the impact of cuts on disadvantaged groups, but limited measurement of outcomes.

We need to integrate human rights into the decision making process. Greater use of the FAIR approach would help:

●Facts – experience of the individual

●Analysis – of human rights at stake, absolute or restricted

●Identification – what changes and who has responsibility

●Review – Recorded & reviewed with individual affected

This also requires better training for staff and decision makers.

Another idea considered by the HMRC is that every public service worker should be required to take a human rights oath, modelled on the Scottish police constable oath. The primary aim was to provoke a debate on how we might embed a human rights culture. It certainly achieved that, but our members had some concerns. The logistics of swearing in 500,000 plus staff would be significant, including the time and cost to brief staff at a time when resources are stretched to breaking point. It would also need to include others in the private & voluntary sector who deliver public services. We would also be concerned about double or even triple jeopardy in disciplinary proceedings, with employers passing the buck for their own responsibilities to the workforce.

These concerns reflect the fact that the biggest barrier to human rights in Scotland is the cuts in public spending. With 50,000 jobs cut and many more to come, together with £6bn to be slashed from the Scottish Budget, human rights are coming under pressure like never before. UNISON's 'Time to Care' report into social care is a good example of how the human rights of service users and staff are being ignored in large parts of Scotland. Welfare cuts are another obvious example of how human rights are being sidelined.

The good news is that human rights is less of a political football in Scotland, avoiding the Tory ministers attacks at Westminster that portray human rights as an alien culture. The Deputy FM Nicola Sturgeon addressed today's conference and pointed to the Scottish Government's draft interim constitution that embeds human rights. While others would argue for a different constitutional approach, there is less difference over the principles. However, if we vote for independence in September, there will be a real debate about how interventionist the constitution should be on issues like human rights, as against a limited description of constitutional authority such as the USA.

Constitutions are fine, but as delegates at today's conference raised, there needs to be education, capacity building and effective legal remedies given the social class and attitudes of our judges. If we look at the use of judicial review in Scotland, it's rarely used outside of immigration and commercial planning challenges. Even when a case does get to the Scottish courts, 75% are unsuccessful.

For trade unionists human rights is at the core of what we stand for. Employment rights are very limited in the UK and charges for ET applications are removing access to justice. As a senior trade union official I am painfully aware that however robust my organising, bargaining and campaigning may be, I can go home at night in safety. There are many comrades across the world who don't operate in a human rights environment and have lost their lives doing what I do ever day. That is why we should view human rights as of international importance and not be sucked into the isolationist approach of a UK Bill of Rights.

Human rights are not an optional add on, it should be at the core of what we do. We need to do more to build awareness and develop practical measures to embed human rights in our decision making processes.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Developing a human rights agenda

I was speaking at a conference in Edinburgh today on the challenges for staff in developing a human rights agenda in Scotland. It was on the same day as the Scottish Parliament was debating 'Promoting and Protecting Human Rights - Scotland, Europe and the Wider World.'

Most of our members and their employers are covered by the Human Rights Act and this approach is embedded into devolution through the Scotland Act. It is a particular issue for members in health, social care, police and education settings.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) are promoting a National Action Plan for Scotland and their analysis of human rights in Scotland is reflected in our experience. Much more needs to be done on process including measures, awareness and capacity building. A particular problem is with impact assessment as this is rarely done well with a tick box approach being the norm. Studies done by Warwick University highlight the importance of clear guidance, shared evidence, monitoring and collective impact studies. The SHRC also have a project that is developing new guidance for public bodies. This month sees the publication of council budgets for the coming financial year. We will be looking careful at the impact assessments on these budgets. Human rights is more than simply justifying the risk of cuts on disadvantaged groups.

Another concern is the UK Government's review of the public sector equality duty. It reflects their regulatory burden approach rather than viewing impact assessment as a positive tool to improve services. More positively, I highlighted the work being done to incorporate human rights approaches into the new national police force, including the Constable’s declaration and a new ethics code. Sadly the Bill also undermined the human rights of police civilian staff in several areas.

Individual public service staff also have responsibility for human rights. However, we found very limited awareness  of human rights approaches and members tell us that they
don't generally operate in a human rights culture. It is viewed as an add on - not integrated into the organisations decision making process. There is some awareness of the FAIR approach that is viewed as a useful tool. There is also not enough training or capacity in this field and I illustrated this with our own work in producing a Scottish Gypsy Travellers guidance booklet for members.

The primary human rights constraint on staff are the spending cuts. These are pushing the boundaries of proportionate responses under human rights law - particularly in areas like care procurement, personalisation, mental health, housing, fuel poverty and of course welfare reform. With 51,700 fewer public service workers in Scotland since the crash, staff are simply too stretched to give adequate consideration to human rights approaches. Cuts are widening inequality and social exclusion.

Public service reform is also a challenge for human rights in Scotland. Contrary to the Christie recommendations we are seeing increased centralisation of services. While communities of place are important we should not forget the importance of communities of interest when protecting human rights, particularly of people from ethnic minorities.

Finally, I looked at the role of human rights in protecting workers. As a senior trade union official I am painfully aware that however robust my organising, bargaining and campaigning may be, I can go home at night in safety. There are many comrades across the world who don't operate in a human rights environment and have lost their lives doing what I do ever day. That is why we should view human rights as of international importance and not be sucked into the isolationist approach of a UK Bill of Rights.

Human rights as a policy and legal approach is of increasing importance to trade unions. It should underpin our approaches to fair pay and attacks on conditions through zero hours contracts and similar provisions. The UK government's attack on health and safety at work undermines human rights, as does privatisation with its disproportionate impact on women workers. The right to strike under Article 11 has also been the subject of some legal debate given the highly restrictive laws in the UK.

In conclusion, human rights should impact on wide range of public service staff. However, it is constrained by limited organisational development and a tick box process rather than an embedded culture. There is limited staff awareness and training and the cuts are a major constraint. More positively, there is a growing recognition of human rights as means of protecting workers.

Human Rights Day

Today is Human Rights Day. This is an opportunity to celebrate human rights, highlight a specific issue, and argue for the full enjoyment of all human rights by everyone everywhere.

This year, the spotlight is on the rights of all people to make their voices heard in public life and be included in political decision-making. These human rights — the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to peaceful assembly and association, and to take part in government (articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) underpin democracy across the world. Not just voting in elections but the right to protest. The Arab spring and the occupy movement are just two recent examples.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission is using the day to promote Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights. This is a first in the UK and will set out how to “fill the gaps” as well as build upon good practice in human rights protection in Scotland with public bodies, civil society and others already getting involved in discussing what it would contain.

This is also a good day to remind ourselves not to take our own human rights for granted. The UK government is working on a proposed Bill of Rights for the UK, as against the universal rights that were developed after the carnage of the Second World War. I have three specific concerns about this:

Attacks on the European Court of Justice in decisions such a prisoner voting. These attacks fail to understand that the ECHR is now integrated into our system of justice. Not forgetting the irony of attacks on judges from those who preach the rule of law to others.

Judges overturning the decisions of elected representatives. Most democratic states recognise that there have to be underpinning rights that protect people against arbitrary law making. Those advocating a Bill of Rights should also recognise that in jurisdictions that adopt this model, judges tend to be much more interventionist and powerful.

That we risk only giving legal rights to the 'worthy citizen' as against the principle of equal treatment. Deportation and immigration cases illustrate this point well.

I covered some of these issues at this time last year when Shami Chakribarti visited Scotland. She felt that Scots take a more positive view of human rights than the rest of the UK. I suspect this is based more on the absence of a ranting tabloid press than any greater understanding. However, I do believe that we can win the argument that Scots are human beings before we are citizens.

Social Justice Scotland

I was speaking at 'Changin Scotland' Scotland this weekend. An excellent weekend of politics and ideas in a relaxed non-partisan context. Superb scenery and weather helps! This was the Independence Weekend and my contribution was on social justice, in a Scotland under extended devolution or independence.

Ask people to define social justice and you’re going to get many different definitions based on their political, religious or social perspective. Of course others will tell you it’s a fairytale unachievable in any form of society. i would argue it is about creating a Scotland, that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognises the dignity of every human being. And lets not get too parochial – it should also drive our approach to international issues. The Constitution of the International Labour Organisation affirms that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice”. There is also global justice movement based on human rights and developing in important spheres such as climate change.

Social justice has broad political support, even the UK Government has a social justice strategy, hard to imagine after this week’s budget, but it’s called ‘Social Justice – Transforming Lives’. Scottish Labour and the SNP would both argue it is central to their purpose and it is a pillar of Green Party thinking.

It also has a strong base in civil society. It was a part of Catholic social teaching, the Protestants' Social Gospel long before John Rawls secular concept of social justice with his liberties (thought, conscience, political, association and liberty of the individual) and in the work of many of Scotland’s NGOs. I would also point to socialist tradition of thinkers, such as Richard Tawney, George Orwell, and, later on, Richard Titmuss, who all argued against the class division and selfishness of acquisitive market societies. And to be fair to the Liberals (not many have cause to at present) the Beveridge Report that aimed to slay the ‘five giants’: want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness.

We should remember that it was a Scot, John Smith who moved Labour off common ownership and onto social justice with his Commission. And today we even have Ian Duncan-Smith’s Centre for Social Justice.

However broad, support for social justice is not universal. Market theorists like Hayek dismiss the very idea of social justice as meaningless, he said “Social justice does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense”.

Even if you accept the concept there is a further debate as to who should be responsible for making sure we have a socially just society. Should you legislate for social justice or merely rely on the moral compass of society’s members? For those of us on the centre-left we might accept that the state has a role here through progressive taxation, income redistribution and even property redistribution to create equality of opportunity.

To highlight the individual response lets consider a sensitive issue in Scotland, devolved or independent, such as consideration of reproductive rights, including the right to abortion and access to contraception. A social justice issue or just a matter of private choice? I would argue that individual choice fails to acknowledge the ways in which racism and economic disparities limit the choices of many women – but others even on the centre left might disagree.

Having introduced the concept lets move on to the practice.

Both relative poverty and economic inequality have risen over the past 13 years in the UK. That deprivation has increased even more among minorities, and  second and even third-generation immigrants remain among most deprived. The poverty rate for minority ethnic groups stood at 40%, twice the 20% found amongst white people.

I would give credit to the Labour decade when poverty fell (faster in Scotland) even though the New Labour mantra was relaxed about inequality. Peter Mandelson being “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” – although I see he has recently been having second thoughts. Pensioner and child poverty in particular was tackled, although less progress on poverty for those in work. Yes, the minimum wage was a huge step forward but Labour leaders have never really accepted the economics of wages as recently articulated by Stewart Lansley and others. Poverty is again on the increase and the long term reduction in the value of wages is an important factor. And lets not forget pay inequality with the gender pay gap at 9% for FTE and 19% for part time workers.

 

What are the tools that Scotland, devolved or independent might deploy to strengthen social justice.

Material inequality requires income redistribution. Largely a function of the tax system. An independent Scotland would have greater control of these levers but would there be the political will to use them? Apart from the modest ‘Penny for Scotland’ no serious proposal let alone use has been made of the 3p power. Arguably because it only applies to the basic rate, but will the 10p power in the Scotland Bill be used? Labour is wary of being labelled as “tax and spend” and the SNP appear wedded to a low tax model in its Celtic Tiger approach to Corporation Tax and the regressive Council Tax freeze.

There has been some progress with the Scottish Living Wage, in the public sector at least, although less in using procurement to drive it through into the private and voluntary sector.

As Wilkinson & Pickett (Spirit Level) have highlighted inequality is about more than income. It requires action on education, health, criminal justice and just about every aspect of social policy. Most of these are already devolved yet arguably we have been better at producing glossy strategies than solid action. Early years, skills, child poverty, health inequalities etc all have such strategies and they all look very similar to those adopted by the previous administration.

Preventative spending illustrates this well. Just about everyone accepts the logic – Finance Committee, Christie Commission, but the doing is much more challenging. Targeting resources on the bottom 10% as Christie recommended makes sense even to the right wing given the impact on public expenditure. Christie estimated 40% public spending in Scotland goes on failure demand. But again difficult in practice.

Lets look at some key areas identified in the Spirit Level were tackling inequality matters. Physical & mental health, education, criminal justice, social cohesion etc. Their evidence shows that more equal societies do better on all of these factors.

So how are we doing in Scotland?

In Scotland the gap between the top and bottom in key outcomes such as income, employment, health, learning and safety is much wider in Scotland than in other European countries. Worse still, most of these negatives are intergenerational and often clustered in small areas. There have been improvements since devolution but, on most key dimensions, inequalities have remained unchanged or become more pronounced.

There are some positives. Healthy life expectancy and household income have, in general, improved as have some learning outcomes, and the overall risk of being a victim of crime. However, income inequality has widened since devolution Because the richest 30% have got richer and the bottom 30% have remained static.

In education, the gap between the bottom 20 per cent and the average in learning outcomes has not changed at all since devolution. The gap in healthy life expectancy between the 20 per cent most deprived and the 20 per cent least deprived areas has increased from 8 to 13.5 years. 32 per cent of adults in the most deprived areas in Scotland report a long-standing illness, disability or health problem compared to 14 per cent in the least deprived areas.

Half of all young people in Scottish prisons have been in care. This rises to 80 per cent when looking only at those convicted of violent offences. This is despite just one per cent of all Scottish children having been in care. Of course we lock up more people than in most European countries and politicians compete to be tougher on crime. The link between deprivation and the likelihood of being a victim of crime has also become stronger.

These are largely ‘hard’ issues, but what about the softer ones? Carol Craig in her book “Tears that made the Clyde” highlights that even after taking account of deprivation, Glasgow’s indicators are worse than comparable cities like Liverpool and Manchester.

Take family breakdown. Over 46 per cent of families with dependent children in Glasgow are lone parent. That's one of the highest figures in the world.  90% of them include the mother, not the father, that's a lot of men detached from family life. 48% compared to 30% in England and Wales are single or never married.

Carol raises other issues like Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, a culture of violence and consumerism -  but the importance of committed relationships, love and tenderness should not be overlooked.

Most of these issues are devolved already. Yes there are important macro economic levers. Yes, DWP powers over benefits and jobs are necessary to create joined up strategies. But essentially we have many of the necessary levers – but do we have the political will?

So let’s start the debate from the sort of Scotland we want and I would argue that that is a Scotland rooted in social justice with a real commitment to tackle inequality. Then look at what type of constitutional change can assist. But we also have to commit to using new powers. As Christie report said “This country is a paradoxical tapestry of rich resources, inventive humanity, gross inequalities, and persistent levels of poor health and deprivation”. 

I believe that extended devolution or independence could bring important levers to help address these issues. But the question I left my audience with is “Will greater devolution or independence change any of the issues I have covered today?” I suspect most of my audience believed it could - but the jury is still out on the issue of political will.

Scotland and human rights

Last week I attended a lecture and dinner with Shami Chakribarti, Director of Liberty, at the University of Edinburgh. Her theme was 'A man's a man for a'that - Scotland and the Human Rights Act.

Her main point was that it's easy to sentimentalise Scottish, British or "western values" as if they always came easily or as if people around the world don't also strive for dignity, equal treatment and fairness. At a time when many at Westminster seek to replace universal "human rights" with "British rights" or citizens' privileges, she encouraged Scotland not to follow this trend. In this shrinking interconnected world, we should not choose to be citizens somewhere but rather human beings everywhere.

A key target for her concern was the proposed Bill of Rights for the UK, as against the universal rights that were developed after the carnage of the Second World War. She highlighted three specific concerns:

• Attacks on the European Court of Justice in decisions such a prisoner voting. These attacks fail to understand that the ECHR is now integrated into our system of justice. Not forgetting the irony of attacks on judges from those who preach the rule of law to others.
• Judges overturning the decisions of elected representatives. Most democratic states recognise that there have to be underpinning rights that protect people against arbitrary law making. Those advocating a Bill of Rights should also recognise that in jurisdictions that adopt this model, judges tend to be much more interventionist and powerful.
• That we risk only giving legal rights to the 'worthy citizen' as against the principle of equal treatment. Deportation and immigration cases illustrate this point well.

There is a perception, at least from an English angle, that Scotland is more relaxed on these points. A less excitable tabloid press certainly helps and Shami argued that she was optimistic because people across the UK are generally supportive of essential human rights. The problem is a perception that they are OK for us, but perhaps less so for others. Immigration cases reflect this point.

I am not convinced that Scots necessarily take a more positive view than the rest of the UK and I illustrated this with some examples from my own experience of anti-racism work. However, I do believe that we can win the argument that Scots are human beings before we are citizens.

Shami did touch on some topical Scottish issues. A concern that the benign Scottish influence over human rights might be lost if Scotland became independent. Either way she hoped we would support human rights not Scottish rights, whatever our constitutional future. She also warned against 'dangerously broad' definitions of speech offences in the proposed football offences legislation. She accepted that the objectives of the Bill are laudable, but experience of speech offences is that they must be closely defined. The broad anti-terrorist legislation provisions of 'glorifying terrorism' as against the clearer incitement to murder or racial hatred. 

The evening was a timely reminder for me of the importance of our human rights framework. Human rights standards and principles apply to each of us equally. Compliance with these rights should be mainstreamed in the design and delivery of public services. they can be used as a tool to argue for better and fairer services. The work of the Liberty and the Human Rights Consortium Scotland  in highlighting these issues deserves support.

Human Rights Day

Today is International Human Rights Day. The date was chosen to honor the United Nations General Assembly's adoption and proclamation, on 10 December 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the first global enunciation of human rights. from this came the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and our UK and Scottish provisions.

This year the United Nations calls on us to celebrate human rights defenders who act to end discrimination. These defenders speak out against discrimination, exclusion, oppression and violence. In Scotland, human rights defenders can be found in our local communities and in our public services. A wide range of public service staff are human rights defenders, striving to protect and promote the dignity of those they serve.

Scotland's Human Rights Commissioner gives us some practical examples of applying human rights law in an article in today's Herald. “If someone is left in what amounts to degrading treatment, and cuts have been made without assessing the impact on their human rights, local authorities are likely to face challenges..... Public bodies need to be able to demonstrate that they have assessed the impact on vulnerable people in the community, that decision-making is proportionate and that individuals have been consulted. As awareness of the Human Rights Act increases, it is more likely that public authorities will be held to account and asked to justify that they were acting lawfully.” he said.

Another group whose human rights are often abused are Scottish gypsy travellers. UNISON Scotland is planning to produce a guidance booklet aimed particular at our members who interface with this community. I have circulated a publication brief today inviting bids to undertake this work for us. If you might be interested and want a copy of the brief, please contact me.

Human rights are also crucial to trade unions and EPSU are highlighting one such example today. Trade union leader Brother Carlo “Caloy” Rodriguez was assinated on 12 November 2010. He was the President of the Water District Union in the Laguna district of the Philippines. He was a strong advocate for the basic human and labour rights of the people and, in particular, against the privatisation of water services in the Philippines.

On International Human Rights Day EPSU have asked for clarification about what the stance of the EU is with regards to the Right to Water.  Legally, the Human Rights Council resolution of September 30th following the General Assembly Resolution makes the human right to water and sanitation legally binding on all EU Member States. They have suggested that the Commission publishes a clear position on how it intends to implement the human right to water and sanitation in Member States’ and EU policy and to mainstream this human right in all policies of the EU such as on Poverty and Development.