BLAIR’S BRITAIN, 1997–2007

Home > Young Adult > BLAIR’S BRITAIN, 1997–2007 > Page 67
BLAIR’S BRITAIN, 1997–2007 Page 67

by ANTHONY SELDON (edt)


  through investment in childcare, and through a series of policies

  intended to ‘make work pay’, including the national minimum wage,

  reforms to tax and National Insurance which favoured low earners and –

  most significantly – the system of means-tested tax credits. In particular,

  the Child Tax Credit (CTC) introduced in April 2003 integrated the

  systems of support for children in households in and out of work, in principle removing many of the benefit disincentives and uncertainty surrounding the move into a job – although at the cost of creating high

  effective marginal tax rates higher up the income scale (see chapter 10).

  The level of worklessness among households with children – the highest

  rate in the industrialised world when Labour came to power – fell

  steadily, as indicated in table 19.2, though it remains high by international standards. A strong underlying economy – itself to at least some

  degree attributable to Labour’s macro-economic management – was an

  important factor, but supply-side policies increasing the incentives for

  parents to work also appear to have been effective.17

  At the same time, tax credit and benefit changes (including those mentioned above as well as increases to universal Child Benefit and to the

  length and generosity of maternity pay) substantially lifted the incomes

  15 Mike Brewer, Will the Government Hit its Child Poverty Target in 2004–5? Briefing Note 47

  (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2004); Holly Sutherland, Poverty in Britain: The

  Impact of Government Policy since 1997. An Update to 2004–5 Using Microsimulation

  (Cambridge: Microsimulation Unit, University of Cambridge, 2004).

  16 National Audit Office (NAO), HM Revenue and Customs 2005–06 Accounts: The

  Comptroller and Auditor General’s Standard Report (London: TSO, 2006).

  17 For example, tax credit changes between 2000 and 2003 are estimated to have raised loneparent employment by 3.4 percentage points, and that of fathers in couples by 0.9 percentage points, but to have had a slight disincentive effect for mothers in couples. See

  Richard Blundell, Mike Brewer and Andrew Shephard, ‘The Impact of Tax and Benefit

  Changes between April 2000 and April 2003 on Parents’ Labour Supply’, IFS Briefing Note

  52 (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2004).

     

  

  Table 19.2. Worklessness and children

  Children under

  Children in workless households

  16 in workless

  by family type

  households

  1000s

  %

  Of all children in

  Of all children in

  lone-parent two-parent

  households (%)

  households (%)

  Spring 1996

  2.4

  19.9

  58.4

  10.0

  Spring 1998

  2.2

  18.5

  56.5

  8.2

  Spring 2000

  2.0

  16.6

  52.5

  6.8

  Spring 2002

  2.0

  16.8

  51.1

  6.8

  Spring 2004

  1.9

  16.1

  49.3

  6.1

  Spring 2006

  1.7

  15.3

  46.8

  6.2

  Source: Office for National Statistics, ‘Work and Worklessness among

  Households: Time Series’, Tables 3(i) and 3(ii). Online edition:

  www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnkϭ12859 (downloaded May 2007).

  of families in all types of employment situations, reducing poverty for

  most groups – as indicated in table 19.1 – with families with a single

  earner benefiting most. Researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies

  (IFS) estimate that rising incomes for households in given employment

  situations were responsible for around 80% of the total change in poverty

  rates during Labour’s first two terms, while movements into work explain

  much of the rest.18

  Why were these policies not sufficient to meet the child poverty target,

  despite optimistic predictions? Forecasting economic change is notoriously difficult, and in the case of a relative child poverty measure small

  errors can have a big impact on results, both because many children are

  positioned just above and below the poverty line, and because the future

  poverty line itself is unknown and dependent on median income, which

  is even harder to control and predict than the incomes of poorer households. Any combination of the assumptions made about earnings,

  profits, rent, interest rates, tax and employment behaviour may lie

  behind the shortfall. The IFS initially suggested that part of the explanation may have been an overestimation of tax credit take-up in forecasts,

  18 Jonathan Shaw, ‘Eradicating Child Poverty’, Briefing Note (London: Institute for Fiscal

  Studies, 2007).

  

   

  but recent administrative figures indicate that take-up of Child Tax

  Credit was high, at between 93% and 98% among low-income working

  families in 2004/5, up from 91–95% in 2003/4.19 Another, rather

  different, issue raised by the IFS is that the household survey data used by

  the government to track child poverty (the Family Resources Survey)

  appear to under-record receipt of tax credits, perhaps because they are

  sometimes made as one-off payments and may not show up in the month

  in which the household is surveyed. This problem has worsened sharply

  since 2001/2: by 2004/5 the gap between administrative data and FRS

  data had reached nearly £5 billion, or almost one-third of total expenditure on tax credits.20 As administrative data are a more robust indicator of

  tax credit spending than survey data, this suggests that child poverty may

  have fallen by more than official data suggest.

  If this is the case, it poses serious questions about the government’s

  ability to measure child poverty accurately in the future, particularly as

  tax credits become an increasingly important part of the anti-poverty

  strategy. But the challenges for the future clearly do not stop with measurement issues. A 2006 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated that additional spending of at least £4 billion a year in tax credits

  would be needed to lift enough children over the poverty line to meet the

  2010 target of halving child poverty.21 Whether or not a Brown government succeeds in finding these resources, it is disappointing that a bigger

  dent has not yet been made in the mountain of poverty illustrated in

  figure 19.1, and disappointing that the government was unable to point

  unequivocally to a 25% reduction in child poverty by 2004/5. However, it

  is also undeniable that real and substantial progress was made for poor

  children under Blair. Perhaps not least of his government’s achievements was David Cameron’s announcement that a future Conservative

  government would also have the reduction of relative child poverty as a

  goal.22 That a Conservative leader would make such a commitment –

  indeed, would even accept the concept of poverty as relative – would have

  been quite inconceivable when Labour took office.

  19 Mike Brewer, Alissa Goodman, Jonathan Shaw and Luke Sibieta,
Poverty and Inequality in

  Britain: 2006, IFS Commentary 101 (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2006); HM

  Revenue and Customs, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit Take-up Rates 2004–05

  (London: HMRC, 2007).

  20 Brewer et al., Poverty and Inequality in Britain: 2006.

  21 Donald Hirsch, What Will it Take to End Child Poverty? Firing on all Cylinders (York:

  Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006).

  22 Helene Mullholland and agencies, ‘Cameron: Poverty is a Moral Disgrace’, The Guardian,

  24 November 2006.

     

  

  Pensioners

  Over a quarter of pensioners lived in relative poverty in 1997. Prior to

  Blair’s leadership, Labour had been keen to restore the link between pensions and earnings broken by the Thatcher administration – this was a

  central plank in both the 1987 and 1992 manifestos. But by 1997 the

  policy had been dropped in favour of a broad statement that ‘all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation’. The first

  two years of Labour government saw very few policy measures aimed

  explicitly at pensioners, with the exception of annual Winter Fuel

  Payments of £100, introduced in November 1997.

  However, from April 1999 a series of reforms aimed to improve living

  standards for the poorest pensioners. Income Support for pensioners was

  rebranded the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) in 1999, with aboveinflation increases and a commitment to increase MIG in line with earnings rather than prices, which was repeated in the 2001 manifesto. In

  2003 the MIG was renamed again (and made more generous) as the guarantee element of the Pension Credit, and the 2005 manifesto and then the

  2006 Pensions White Paper continued the commitment to earningsuprating into the long term. By April 2004 the guarantee element was

  equivalent to around 25% of average earnings for a single person – the

  level the basic state pension would have been if the link with earnings had

  not been broken. The difference, of course, is that the Pension Credit is

  means-tested. At the same time, some new universal benefits in kind such

  as free eye tests and TV licences were introduced, and there were also

  small increases in the basic state pension. The 2006 White Paper pledged

  to re-link the latter to earnings by the end of a fourth Labour term.

  If the guarantee element of Pension Credit continues to be linked to

  earnings it will remain just above the poverty line for a single person,

  though still just below for a couple. Its impact is clear: the level of pensioner poverty has fallen steadily and substantially, from 29% in 1996/7

  down to 17% in 2005/6, measured after housing costs, representing a

  fall of more than 40%.23 This can be seen in figure 19.2, which also shows

  that most of the change took place during Blair’s second term, as would

  be expected given the timing of reforms. Measured before housing costs,

  the decline is less dramatic, but poverty still fell by 15%, down from 25%

  23 Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Households Below Average Income

  1994/5–2005/6 (London: TSO, 2007). The poverty line is 60% of equivalised median

  income.

  

   

  35

  30

  25

  20

  %

  AHC

  BHC

  15

  10

  5

  0

  1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

  Figure 19.2. Share of pensioners living below the poverty line before and after

  housing costs

  Source: DWP, Households Below Average Income 1994/5–2005/6.

  Note: Percentage of pensioners living in households with income below 60% of the

  equivalised median before and after housing costs.

  to 21%. It is striking that by 2003/4, on the AHC measure, a pensioner

  was less likely to live in poverty than a non-pensioner for the first time

  since the early 1980s recession, and the gap widened in each of the subsequent two years.24 Not all the decline in pensioner poverty can be attributed to government policy: there is also a cohort effect, as new retirees

  tend to be better off than the older pensioners they replace. But the IFS

  estimate that the cohort effect accounts for only one-quarter of the

  poverty reduction over the period, with rising incomes accounting for

  three-quarters.25

  If all pensioners claimed the Pension Credit, poverty would have fallen

  even more quickly – after all, poverty in single-pensioner households has

  in principle now been abolished. In fact, while take-up of the guarantee

  element increased substantially in the year after its introduction in 2003,

  in 2005/6 between 19% and 30% of eligible pensioners still failed to

  24 Mike Brewer, Alissa Goodman, Alistair Muriel and Luke Sibieta, Poverty and Inequality in

  the UK: 2007, IFS Briefing Note 73 (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2007).

  25 Brewer et al., Poverty and Inequality in Britain: 2006.

     

  

  claim.26 This compares with between 6% and 17% of the non-pensioner

  population eligible for Income Support.27 In many cases the amounts

  unclaimed are quite substantial, with one-third of non-claimants eligible

  for more than £50 a week.28 Research commissioned by the DWP in 2004

  and 2006 into the causes of low take-up found the most common obstacle to be perceived ineligibility: many pensioners did not think they

  would qualify, perhaps because they were home-owners, lived with adult

  relatives or had been turned down for assistance in the past.29 Some were

  put off by a complicated application process; others were worried about

  going through the process only to be turned down, as they did not want to

  appear ‘greedy’. A positive finding of the research was that very few

  people were unaware of the existence of the Pension Credit, in contrast to

  an earlier finding that 57% of entitled non-recipients of MIG were

  unaware of benefits payable to people on low income.30 In 2006 the

  National Audit Office concluded that the Pension Service had made ‘real

  and substantial progress’ since 2002 ‘using new and well-thought

  through approaches’ to ensure that more pensioners received their entitlements, although still more could be done to reach the most disadvantaged.31 Continued low take-up highlights the key problem with reliance

  on means-tested benefits to tackle poverty, but it remains true that poor

  pensioners have vastly improved financial support available to them in

  2007 compared to 1997, and that imaginative efforts are being made to

  make sure all of them benefit in practice.

  Working-age households without children

  The situation of working-age households without children was conspicuously absent from government targets and indicators under Blair. This is

  not to say that nothing was done to improve living standards for lowincome households without children. The extensive agenda aimed at

  26 DWP, Pension Credit Estimates of Take-up in 2005–06 (London: DWP, 2007).

  27 DWP, Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-Up 2004/2005 (London: DWP, 2006).

  28 DWP, Pension Credit Estimates of Take-up in 2005�
��06, figure 1.2.

  29 C. Talbot, L. Adelman and R. Lilly, Encouraging Take-up: Awareness of and Attitudes to

  Pension Credit, DWP Research Report 234 (London: DWP, 2004); K. Bunt, L. Adams and

  C. Leo, Understanding the Relationship between the Barriers and Triggers to Claiming

  Pension Credit, DWP Research Report 336 (London: DWP, 2006).

  30 Cited in Maria Evandrou and Jane Falkingham, ‘A Secure Retirement for All? Older People

  and New Labour’, in Hills and Stewart, A More Equal Society?

  31 NAO, Progress in Tackling Pensioner Poverty: Encouraging Take-up of Entitlements

  (London: TSO, 2006).

  

   

  helping people into work and at making work pay encompassed nonparents as well as parents. Some of the measures, such as the national

  minimum wage and reforms to tax and National Insurance contributions

  at the bottom of the income distribution, benefited all low earners. There

  were also a series of New Deal programmes for specific groups, covering

  young people, the long-term unemployed aged twenty-five plus, and

  disabled people (compulsory for the first two groups, voluntary for

  the latter); these appear to have had positive though limited impacts.32

  Smaller initiatives strengthened the employment rights of part-time and

  temporary workers, and helped address low pay in the public sector.33

  Perhaps most strikingly, in April 2003 the Working Tax Credit was

  extended to include households without children: with this move the

  government effectively began to subsidise low wages in general, not just

  where a low wage is insufficient to support children. In one of the last acts

  of Blair’s premiership, the Welfare Reform Act of May 2007 introduced

  substantial reforms to Incapacity Benefit, including both much more

  support for work-related activity and training and the threat of benefit

  sanctions for the first time for those refusing to participate.

  What about the level of financial support for those who remain

  without work? Reforms to the benefit system raised incomes for the

  most severely disabled, while introducing a greater degree of meanstesting. These reforms were largely welcomed by disability campaigners,

  although there is concern that benefits are poorly advertised and difficult

  to access.34 Incapacity Benefit rose only in line with the retail price index,

  lagging behind the change in the poverty line over most of the period,

 

‹ Prev