FOREWORD BY DAVID CAMERON
Labour’s Two Nations Labour’s great claim is that they are ‘for the many, not the few’. That rings hollow today. This report exposes the truth: after thirteen years in government, the party that prides itself on fairness has delivered the very opposite. Labour have failed the poorest in our society. This failure wasn’t down to a lack of money. Labour claimed that they would be “wise spenders, not big spenders”, and they would cut the costs of social breakdown. Yet billions have been poured into tax credits and social programmes, and the failure persists. That failure is because they have not directed that money to the right places. More profoundly, they have failed to understand what lifts people out of poverty. We will not make the same mistakes. Some of our boldest policies are about making sure that the money government has gets to those who need it most. So we’ll introduce a pupil premium so that children from the poorest backgrounds attract more funding, meaning there’s a greater incentive for the best schools to reach out for them. And we’ll do the same for public health, directing more money towards the most disadvantaged communities. But Conservatives understand that it is not enough simply to spend taxpayers’ money on those in greatest need. If we’re going to bridge the divide that separates Labour’s two nations, we need to treat the root causes of poverty – that chain of deprivation that runs through family breakdown, educational failure, worklessness and debt. That’s why we have put such emphasis on strengthening families and radically reforming our schools and welfare system. We also need to examine the role of the state. Today the size, scope and role of government in Britain has reached a point where it is inhibiting, not advancing the progressive aims of reducing poverty, fighting inequality, and increasing general well-being. But we should not make the mistake of assuming that smaller government would automatically reverse Labour’s failure. We need to use the state to help remake society: directly agitating for and creating the conditions for social renewal. We will empower and enable individuals, families and communities to take control of their lives. In this way we will create the big society - our positive alternative to Labour’s failed big government - through which responsibility and opportunity can develop. Only in this way can we fix our broken society. After 13 years of Labour’s failure, it is the Conservative Party that is the force for progress in our country.
Labour’s Two Nations
1
Labour’s Two Nations “Wherever we find opportunity denied, aspirations unfulfilled, potential unrealised; wherever and whenever we find injustice and unfairness... it is our duty to act” (Gordon Brown, Leadership Speech, 24 June 2007). The Labour Party was founded to protect the poor and champion the interests of working people. Thirteen years after they came to power, promising to combine economic efficiency with social justice, how equal is Britain? Given the amount that has been spent, it would be wrong to suggest that Labour have made no effort to tackle poverty. In the past decade, public spending has doubled. Health spending has almost trebled. Since 1997 the Government has spent £473 billion on welfare payments alone – that’s as big as our whole economy in 1988. Much of this has been channelled through tax credits and income transfers and as a result, there has been a measure of success in lifting those just below the poverty line to just above it.
“
We should focus on the causes of poverty as well as the symptoms because that is the best way to reduce it in the long term. And we should focus on closing the gap between the bottom and the middle, not because that is the easy thing to do, but because focusing on those who do not have the chance of a good life is the most important thing to do.
David Cameron
”
Hugo Young lecture.
But, quite apart from the fact that it turns out much of this has been paid for on account, creating debts that will have to be paid back by future generations; a more complete assessment of the evidence shows something different - that as the state continued to expand under Labour, our society became more, not less unfair. This begs a simple question: ‘why has the state, with all this money, failed to tackle poverty?’
“
The gap between rich and poor is still greater in the UK than in three quarters of OECD countries.
OECD
”
Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, October 2008.
One reason lies in the global trend of rising returns to education because of new technologies and globalisation. This has benefited those with good education and skills – while those without are increasingly shut out of the global economy. Labour’s response to this trend has largely been more and more redistribution, means-tested benefits and tax credits. Swimming against the tide, that approach is reaching the limits of its effectiveness. We have surely learnt that it is not enough merely to keep funding more and more generous tax credits. Indeed, the harm that means-tested benefits do to work incentives is beginning to undo the good they do in raising people's incomes.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies observed of the Government’s approach: “Its current strategy of increasing... [means-tested] child tax credit is effective at reducing poverty directly, but its indirect effect might be to increase poverty through weakening incentives for parents to work” (The Poverty Trade-Off: Work Incentives and Income Redistribution in Britain, 4 October 2006). This is a vital point. We cannot separate the economic from the social, as the big government approach mechanistically tends to do. The social consequences of economic reforms do matter. It is because they include undermining personal and social responsibility that the big government approach ends up perpetuating poverty instead of solving it. When the welfare state was created, there was an ethos, a culture to our country – of self-improvement, of mutuality, of responsibility. The culture of respect for work, parenting and aspiration; the rich tapestry of civic organisations that meant communities looked out for one another; the cooperatives, the friendly societies, the building societies, the guilds – all this provided a bedrock for strong communities.
Labour’s Two Nations
“
Poverty has become more entrenched. There is a glass ceiling on opportunity in our country.
”
Alan Milburn HC Hansard, col.701 28 March 2006
2
But as the state continued to expand, it sapped people’s incentive to do things for themselves, their families and their neighbours. Human kindness, generosity and imagination were steadily squeezed out by the work of the state. Today, the character of our society - and indeed the character of some people themselves, as actors in society, is changing. There is less expectation to take responsibility, to work, to stand by the mother of your child, to achieve, to engage with your local community, to keep your neighbourhood clean, to respect other people and their property, to use your own discretion and judgement. Why? Because today the state is ever-present: either doing it for you, or telling you how to do it, or making sure you're doing it their way. The big government approach has spawned multiple perverse incentives that either discourage responsibility or actively encourage irresponsibility.
“
The strategy against poverty and social exclusion pursued since the late 1990s is now largely exhausted.
”
Joseph Rowntree Foundation Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2007, 3 December 2007.
So what is the answer? It is certainly not five more years of big government. Nor is it, as some have argued, a simple retrenchment of the state. Government should not simply step back and hope its place will be filled by a flourishing of personal responsibility and civic renewal Our approach to mending our broken society is not big government, but the big society. We understand that the big society is not just going to spring to life on its own: we need strong and concerted government action to make it happen. We need to use the state to help remake society. The challenge we face is stark, the need for change is pressing. This new analysis charts the startlingly different life chances of people living in the ten most deprived and the ten least deprived local authorities in England. They are Labour’s two nations.
Childhood “Abolishing (child poverty) in a generation ... is not just a moral issue, but a litmus test for any political party and a challenge for every person in Britain” (Gordon Brown, Tackling Child Poverty Speech, 13 December 2001).
“
The division between rich and poor is apparent from the very How most children experience beginning of a child’s life. Children born in the most deprived areas school is determined by the level of are fifty per cent more likely to have a low birth weight than children disadvantage they face. Poorer chilin the wealthiest. As children reach school age, the gap between rich dren in the study accepted that they and poor continues. Children in the poorest areas are almost thirty per cent more likely to be denied their first choice of secondary were not going to get the same school.1 They miss almost twice as many school days due to truancy. quality of schooling, or the same They are almost twice as likely to be expelled. They are six times outcomes, as better-off children. more likely to grow up in a household dependent on out-of-work benefits. And girls under the age of eighteen are almost three times Joseph Rowntree Foundation more likely to become pregnant. It is therefore not surprising that pupils in the Themost impact of poverty on young children’s experience of school, 21 November 2007. in the most deprived areas are only half as likely to get three ‘A’ grades in their A-levels than their peers in the least deprived areas.
”
Labour have not failed Britain’s poorest children because they do not care; they have failed because their policies addressed only the symptoms of poverty instead of its causes. They created vast bureaucracies, set up complicated systems of means-tested benefits, and set themselves targets they would never reach.
1
The areas used for this analysis are the ten most deprived and ten least deprived local authorities according to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Index of Deprivation 2007. See page 7 for more details.
Labour’s Two Nations
3
And they have failed in education in particular because schools are being swamped by bureaucracy and strangled by centralisation. Each year, the DCSF sends more words of guidance to head teachers than there are in the King James Bible – leaving them with less time to focus on raising standards. Whitehall’s target culture pushes schools, particularly those in deprived areas, towards exams that boost league table rankings rather than the ones that are best for students. Teachers increasingly find that bureaucrats are dictating not just what should be taught but how it should be taught. And the Government’s refusal to allow the most demanding qualifications in state schools means that academic rigour is becoming the preserve of those who can afford to go private. To make matters worse, schools’ one-time escape route from this stranglehold – Academy status – is being blocked off. Academies were meant to be independent state schools, but they have lost control over the curriculum, over pay and conditions, and over their relationship with local authorities So we need a new approach. We need to strengthen families, by increasing the number of health visitors, making Sure Start focus on the poorest families, supporting marriage in the tax system and ending the couple penalty in the tax credit system. And we need a radically improved education system, which we will deliver by introducing a pupil premium so that children from the poorest backgrounds attract more funding, allowing groups to set up new schools and improve choice for parents in deprived areas, and allowing successful academies to take over failing ‘sink schools’.
Adulthood “By these measures which will create work, make sure that work always pays, and provide recurring opportunities for lifelong learning, the new welfare state will help equip Britain for the new world” (Gordon Brown, Budget Speech, 2 July 1997). The unequal opportunities for children in Labour’s two nations are matched by the unequal outcomes for their parents. Adults living in the poorest parts of the country are twice as likely to have no qualifications at all. They were twice as likely to lose their jobs during the recession. And those who are unemployed are twice as likely to become long-term unemployed.
“
There are serious inequalities of access to labour market opportunities. ... Many are trapped in a cycle of lowpaid, poor quality work and unemployment.
The Marmot Review
”
Fair Society, Healthy Lives Executive Summary, p20.
Labour wasted the opportunity to reform welfare and get people working during the years of economic growth. Three million jobs were created between 1997 and 2007, but up to eighty per cent of them went to migrant workers (Statistics Commission, Foreign Workers in the UK – Statistics Commission Briefing Note, December 2007) while almost five million Britons languished on out-of-work benefits (DWP, Quarterly Statistical Summary, November 2009).
“
This is the highest level of income inequality since soon after the Second World War.
”
National Equality Panel An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK: Report of the National Equality Panel January 2010.
Labour’s flagship ‘New Deal’ programme failed because, like all central government bureaucracies, it treats people like statistics rather than human beings. It has cost the taxpayer more than £3 billion (Hansard, 4 Jun 2007, Col. 34W), yet it has failed. It takes a short-term approach to getting people into jobs, and counts success as placing someone in work for a matter of weeks, rather than meaningful, sustained employment. As a result, the reality is that it is a revolving door back on to benefits: last year only one in four young people on the New Deal went on to find a job (DWP, Employment Programme Statistics, May 2009).
Instead of this failing ‘big government’ policy, we need a more targeted approach to tackle inter-generational worklessness. So we will simplify Labour’s numerous programmes into a single back-to-work programme that provides tailored, individualised support for the unemployed; we will extend support for the 2.6 million people claiming Incapacity Benefit who have been ignored by Labour; and we will pay providers by results so they help people into sustainable employment. And in the long-run, our proposals for school reform, including a new generation of technical colleges, will give young people the opportunity to make the most of their talents. If Labour’s failure to reform the welfare system is disappointing, their failure to get to grips with housing is truly shocking. House building is at its lowest rate since the Second World War (DCLG, Live Tables: Table 208 and 244, House building, November 2009). Fewer homes have been built under Labour then under the last Conservative Government (DCLG, Live Tables: Table 244, permanent dwellings completed in England, August 2009). Home ownership is falling – and Gordon Brown’s Housing Minister is “not sure that’s such a bad thing” (The Independent¸ 11 December 2009). Labour’s Two Nations
4
Waiting lists for social housing have gone up from just over one million in 1996 to 1.8 million in 2009 (Hansard, 13 June 2007, Col. 1076WA; DCLG, Local Authority Housing Statistics, England: 2008-09, 26 November 2009). And this analysis shows that the least well off have suffered disproportionately. People living in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to be on a waiting list for social housing. And households are four times more likely to be homeless and in priority need of housing. Conservatives recognise the importance of social housing and the security it provides. We will protect and respect the rights of social tenants. Many social tenants have great pride in their homes and the neighbourhood in which they live, and deserve to be encouraged. We will bring a whole new approach to social housing, by offering social tenants with a record of five years’ good behaviour a ten per cent equity stake in their home, by giving a ‘right to move’ for tenants who wish to move to social sector properties in other parts of the country, and by widening access to shared ownership schemes.
“
Unfortunately it’s poor areas that suffer most from crime now and it will be poor areas that continue to suffer.
”
Louise Casey Government adviser on crime Webchat on Number Ten website, 17 June 2008.
But our analysis shows that the inequality between Labour’s two nations goes beyond employment and material wellbeing. People living in the most deprived parts of the country are also more likely to be affected by social problems – and in particular, they are more likely to become a victim of crime. They are almost three times more likely to be a victim of violent crime, twice as likely to be a victim of common assault, and thirteen times more likely to be a victim of robbery. It is no wonder Britain has such serious social problems when we have a culture of family breakdown, poor educational attainment and entrenched worklessness. But Labour have not only failed to tackle these causes of crime – something they so memorably promised to do – but they have failed to tackle criminal activity itself. So it will fall to a Conservative government to take on crime, by making police forces accountable to their communities, getting police officers onto the streets and by using abstinence-based rehabilitation for drug addicts.
Old age “We need to and will do better at... ensuring patients are treated with dignity in the NHS; better at providing the wider range of services now needed by our growing elderly population” (Gordon Brown, Leadership Speech, 24 June 2007). As people reach old age, our analysis shows that the inequality continues. Men living in the least deprived parts of the country can expect to live for 67 years before they are likely to have a disability; in the most deprived parts of the country, the figure is just 55. Women in the least deprived areas can expect to reach the age of 69 free of disability; women in the most deprived areas reach the age of 58. And life expectancy itself is five years lower for men and four years lower for women in the poorest areas. One of the key reasons for these disparities is the Government’s poor record on public health. However much we spend, if we focus only on clinical care we will always be trying to tackle health problems once they have already occurred. With less political interference in the NHS, a Conservative government will turn the Department of Health into a Department of Public Health so that the prevention of illness gets the attention it needs. Because prevention is better than cure, we will provide separate public health funding to local authorities, which will be accountable for – and paid according to – how successful they are in improving their local communities’ health. And, as a progressive government, we will weight public health funding so that extra resources go to the poorest areas with the worst health outcomes through a new ‘health premium’.
Labour’s Two Nations
“
The starkest demonstration of the gap between rich and poor can be seen in the gulf in life expectancy between different social groups. Despite the government’s commitment that no one should be disadvantaged by where they live, the reality is that people who are poor, or who live in poor communities, die earlier.
David Sinclair
”
Head of Policy at Help the Aged, The Guardian, 13 March 2008.
5
One Nation once more The evidence is stark, and it proves that Britain is once more divided into two nations. And it is no surprise that there is such inequality between our richest and poorest communities, when the State sends so many wrong signals and gets so many key policies wrong. Labour say they want strong families, but they pay couples to live apart. They say they believe in full employment, but they have been content to leave five million people to languish on out-ofwork benefits instead of helping them into jobs. We can’t go on like this.
“
When you are paid more not to work than to work, when you are better off leaving your children than nurturing them, when our welfare system tells young girls that having children before finding the security of work and a loving relationship means a home and cash now, whereas doing the opposite means a long wait for a home and less cash later; when social care penalises those who have worked hard and saved hard by forcing them to sell their home, rather than rewarding them by giving them some dignity in old age; when your attempts at playing a role in society are met with inspection, investigation, and interrogation, is it any wonder our society is broken?
Instead, we need a new, progressive government that understands that we can only defeat poverty by tackling its root causes: poor educational attainment, inter-generational worklessness, and family breakdown. Only when we have done so will we able to defeat the scourge of poverty and inequality, and call ourselves one nation again.
”
David Cameron Hugo Young lecture.
Labour’s Two Nations
6
Labour’s Two Nations: Analysis Our analysis shows that in the most deprived areas: • Life expectancy at birth is five years lower for males and four years lower for females than in the least deprived areas. • Males can expect to live 55 years of their life disability free, compared to 67 years in the least deprived areas. For females, those figures are 58 years and 69 years respectively. • Babies are 50 per cent more likely to have a low birth weight. • Children are six times more likely to grow up in a household dependent on out-of-work benefits. • At school, pupils miss almost twice as many school days due to truancy. • Pupils are almost 30 per cent more likely to be denied their first choice of secondary school. • Young people are almost twice as likely to be expelled from school. • Pupils are half as likely to get three ‘A’ grades at A-level as their peers in the least deprived local authorities. • Teenage girls under 18 are almost three times more likely to become pregnant. • Young people aged 18-24 are twice as likely to suffer from youth unemployment. • Adults are twice as likely to have lost their jobs during the recession. Those who are unemployed are twice as likely to become long term unemployed. • People are twice as likely to be on a waiting list for social housing. • Households are four times more likely to be homeless. • People are almost three times as likely to be a victim of violent crime. • People are twice as likely to be a victim of common assault. • People are thirteen times more likely to be a victim of robbery. • People are twice as likely to have no qualifications at all. • Hospital admissions per 1000 of the population are 30 per cent higher compared to the least deprived areas. The Local Authorities used for this analysis have been taken from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Index of Deprivation 2007. The Local Authorities used in this analysis are:
10 least deprived local authorities
10 most deprived local authorities
Chiltern* Hart* Mid Sussex* South Cambridgeshire* South Northamptonshire* Surrey Heath* Uttlesford* Waverley* West Oxfordshire* Wokingham
Birmingham Easington* Hackney Islington Knowsley Liverpool Manchester Middlesbrough Newham Tower Hamlets
*Education statistics are not available for some of these districts. In these areas the equivalent unitary or county council area has been used.
Labour’s Two Nations
7
Source: DCLG, English Indices of Deprivation 2007, March 2008.
Labour’s Two Nations: Poverty and Worklessness Figures reveals that it is people in the most deprived areas that have suffered the greatest increases in unemployment during the recession: • As a child you are six times more likely to grow up in a household dependent on out of work benefits. On average 37 per cent of children in the most deprived Local Authorities are growing up in a household dependent on out-of-work benefits compared to 6 per cent on average in the least deprived Local Authorities. Of the Local Authorities analysed Tower Hamlets has the highest proportion of children growing up in a household dependent on out-of-work benefits at 48 per cent (Note this analysis has been done using experimental statistics published by the DWP and results are indicative only, for more information see http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/ben_hholds/cb_hholds_guidance.pdf).
Labour’s Two Nations
8
• If you are a young person you are twice as likely to be claiming out of work benefits. One in six young people in the most deprived areas is claiming benefits compared to one in fourteen young people in the least deprived areas. • You are twice as likely to be working age and economically inactive. One in three working age people in deprived areas is economically inactive, compared to one in six people in the least deprived areas. 35 per cent of working age people in Newham are economically inactive. • You are almost twice as likely to have lost your job during the recession, and if you are unemployed you are twice as likely to become long term unemployed. The rate of Jobseeker’s Allowance claims has increased by almost twice as much in the ten most deprived areas compared to the ten least deprived areas during the recession. In Middlesbrough, Tower Hamlets, Birmingham and Liverpool one in five people who are unemployed have been out of work for over a year, on average in the ten least deprived areas that figure is one in ten. Sources: ONS, Labour Market Statistics, December 2009, www.nomisweb.co.uk; ONS, Annual Population Survey, June 2009; DWP Work and Pensions Longitundinal Study, February 2009; DWP, Children in Out-of-work Benefit Households, January 2010, note these are experimental statistics and indicative only); ONS, 2008 Mid-year population estimates.
Labour’s Record on Worklessness and Poverty • Severe poverty has risen by almost 1 million since 1997. Under Labour the number of people living in Severe Poverty has risen by 900,000 to reach 5.7 million people.
Source: IFS, Income and Equality Statistics, 2009.
Labour’s Two Nations
9
• Inequality is higher than in 1997 and has now reached a record high. The Gini Coefficient – a commonly used internationally recognized measure of income inequality – is above the level that Labour inherited and at the highest level ever since the start of a consistent time series in 1961.
Source: IFS, Income and Equality Statistics, 2009. The Gini Coefficient is a widely used measure of inequality, between 0 and 1 where 0 indicates perfect equality, with every household having exactly the same income, and 1 implies absolute inequality, with a single household earning a country’s entire income. • Under Labour youth unemployment has hit record highs with one in five unable to find a job. Youth unemployment has reached record highs under Labour with one in five young people unable to find a job. There are 927,000 young people unemployed in the UK, up by 283,000 since 1997 – a rise of 44 per cent. Youth unemployment began to rise in 2002, far before the onset of the recession.
(ONS, Time Series Data, January 2010). • In 2009 economic inactivity rose to record levels with 8.05 million working age people out of work. 2.3 million economically inactive people would like to work but do not appear in the unemployment figures. Over one in five working age people is economically inactive (ONS, Labour Market Statistics, January 2010 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0110.pdf).
Labour’s Two Nations
10
• More children grow up in workless households than in anywhere else in Europe. In 2008 over 16 per cent of children in the UK were growing up in workless households, the highest proportion in all of Europe (Eurostat, November 2009).
• The poorest are getting poorer The income of the poorest 10 per cent of households has been falling for the past four years and is now £9 a week lower in real terms than in 2002. Over the same period the richest 10 per cent of households have seen their incomes grow in real terms by £94 a week. The income of the poorest 10 per cent of households is the same now in real terms as it was in 1999 (DWP, Households Below Average Income 2007/08 Full Report, 7 May 2009, p.19, table 2.1).
Labour’s Two Nations
11
• The poorest pay the most of their income in tax. The poorest 20 per cent of the population pay the highest proportion of their income in tax. The poorest twenty per cent of society pay almost 39 per cent of their income in tax compared to the richest twenty percent who pay just under 35 per cent of their income in tax. (ONS,The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 2007/08 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Taxes-Benefits-2007-2008/Taxes_benefits_0708.pdf).
Labour’s Two Nations: Health • Life expectancy at birth is up to five years lower in a deprived area. The average life expectancy for men in the most deprived areas is five years lower than for men living in the least deprived areas. The average life expectancy for women in deprived areas is four years lower than in the least deprived areas. • There is an even bigger gap in the number of years you can expect to live a disability free life. Males born in the least deprived areas can expect to live 67 years of their life disability free, compared to 55 years in the most deprived areas. For females, those figures are 69 years and 58 years respectively. • Babies born in the most deprived areas are 50 per cent more likely to have a low birth weight. On average for the 10 most deprived areas, 9 per cent of babies are born with a low birth rate, compared to 6 per cent in the 10 least deprived areas. • Teenage girls are almost three times more likely to become pregnant. Young women under 18 are three times more likely to fall pregnant in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived areas. In the most deprived areas, 5.4 per cent are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18, compared to just 1.9 per cent in the least deprived areas. • Hospital admissions are 30 per cent higher in deprived areas. The number of hospital admissions per 1,000 of the population is 30 per cent higher in the ten most deprived Local Authorities compared to the ten least deprived Local Authorities. Sources: www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk
Labour’s Two Nations
12
Labour’s Record on Health • Victorian Levels of Inequality. The difference between the life expectancy of the richest and poorest in our country is now greater than at any time since Queen Victoria’s reign (British Medical Journal, 30 April 2005). • Life Expectancy Gap Between Rich and Poor Growing. Latest government figures show that since 1997, the gap in life expectancy between the fifth of areas with the worst health and deprivation indicators and the population as a whole is growing. The difference in life expectancy for men in the most deprived areas compared to the rest of the population has grown by five per cent compared to the 1997 baseline. For women the gap in life expectancy is 14 per cent greater than in 1997 (Department of Health, Autumn Performance Report, December 2009).
• Targets to reduce health inequalities to be missed. The Government set itself a target to reduce health inequalities in infant mortality and life expectancy by 10 per cent by 2010, which it is on course to miss (Department of Health, Autumn Performance Report, December 2009). • Poorest have lowest cancer survival rates. People living in the most deprived parts of England have lower survival rates for cancer. People have less chance of being alive five years after diagnosis if they live in areas covered by the most deprived Primary Care Trusts, known as Spearhead PCTs, including Blackpool, Barnsley, Manchester, Cumbria and County Durham. Analysis of people diagnosed between 1998 and 2003 found "significantly lower" survival rates for the most deprived PCTs (Department of Health map of health inequalities, as reported in Press Association National Newswire: 4 September 2008, 17:34). • 2.5 million years of life potentially lost to health inequalities. In England, the many people who are currently dying prematurely each year as a result of health inequalities would otherwise have enjoyed, in total, between 1.3 and 2.5 million extra years of life (Fair Society, Healthy Lives, The Marmot Review, 11 February 2010, Executive Summary, p.10).
Labour’s Two Nations
13
Labour’s Two Nations: Crime • You are almost three times as likely to be a victim of a violent offence if you live in a deprived area. In the most deprived areas a person is three times more likely to experience violence against the person than in the least deprived areas. (Average rate of 8.5 offences per thousand of the population in the ten least deprived areas compared with 23.9 in the most deprived.) • You are twice as likely to be a victim of common assault. On average, you are over twice as likely to be a victim of common assault if you live in a more deprived local authority. The highest rate for common assault amongst most deprived local authorities was 9.1 per 1000 people in Middlesbrough, compared to the highest rate amongst the least deprived local authorities of 3.6 per 1000 people in Chiltern. • You are thirteen times more likely to be a victim of robbery. On average, you are thirteen times more likely to be a victim of robbery if you live in a more deprived LA. The highest rate for robbery amongst most deprived local authorities was 6.8 per 1000 of the population in Newham, compared to the highest rate for robbery amongst the least deprived local authorities at 0.7 per 1000 people in Chiltern. Source: Office of National Statistics, Notifiable Offences recorded by the police, 2008/9 and 2001/02, www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk.
Labour’s Record on Crime • Unemployed and lone parents more likely to fear crime. Nearly half of single parent households and unemployed say fear of crime has a ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ impact on their quality of life, compared to an average of 35 per cent. • Unemployed people are twice as likely to be a victim of violence. The risk of being a victim of violence for unemployed people was 7.6 per cent in 2008-09 compared to 3.2 per cent for all adults. If you have never worked or are long-term unemployed, you are more at risk of violence than someone in a professional occupation. • Poorest households are most at risk of violence. Households with the lowest income (less than £10,000) are the most at risk of violence. • Social renters face a higher risk of burglary. Social renters are more at risk of burglary than owner occupiers (4.2 per cent victims in 2008-09 compared to 1.7 per cent). Adults living in households with incomes of less than £10,000 are the most at risk. • Unemployed people twice as likely to be burgled. Unemployed people are twice as likely to be a victim of burglary than someone in employment (5.7 per cent vs 2.5 per cent). • Anti-social behaviour. Single parent households (30 per cent) and social renters (29 per cent) are nearly twice as likely to suffer high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour in their area than average (17 per cent). Source: Home Office, Crime in England and Wales 2008-09, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0809.html.
Labour’s Two Nations: Education New analysis by the Conservatives has revealed the startling extent of educational inequality in England today. In the most deprived areas, behaviour problems are more prevalent, academic achievement is lower, and the shortage of good school places is greater. As a consequence, children in the poorest parts of the country are not being given the start they need to get on in life. In the most deprived local authorities: • Children miss almost twice as many school days due to truancy. Compared with young people in the least deprived areas, pupils in the most deprived local authorities miss almost twice as many school days due to truancy.
Labour’s Two Nations
14
• Young people are almost twice as likely to be expelled. Secondary school pupils in the poorest areas are almost twice as likely to be expelled as pupils in the richest areas. • Pupils are almost 30 per cent more likely to be denied their first choice of school. In the ten most deprived areas almost one in four pupils did not gain admission to their first choice secondary school. In the least deprived areas that figure was one in five. • Pupils are half as likely to get 3 As at A-level. One in ten pupils get 3 As at A-level in the ten least deprived local authorities, compared with almost one in 25 in the most deprived areas. People are twice as likely to have no qualifications at all. One in five people in the most deprived areas has no qualification at all, compared to one in twelve people in the least deprived areas. Sources: DCSF, Pupil Absence in Schools in England, 2007/8, 26 February 2009, http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000832/index.shtml - Table 7.1; DCSF, Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2007/08, 30 July 2009 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000860/index.shtml - Table 17; DCSF, Secondary School Applications and Offers, 12 March 2009 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000833/index.shtml; DCSF, GCE/Applied GCE A/AS and Equivalent Examination Results in England, 2008/09 (Revised), 13 January 2010 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000906/index.shtml - Table 11; www.nomisweb.co.uk
Labour’s Record on Education • Free school meal pupils fall behind their peers at every stage. 70.8 per cent of pupils eligible for free school meals are reading at the expected level by the end of Key Stage 1, compared with 87.4 per cent of non-FSM pupils. • By the end of primary school, 53.3 per cent of FSM pupils reach level 4 (the expected level) in English and maths, compared with 75.5 per cent of their non-FSM peers. • By GCSE, just 26.9 per cent of FSM pupils get 5 A*-C grades (including English and maths), compared to 54.4 per cent of non-FSM pupils. • At A-level, 3.7 per cent of FSM pupils get 3 or more As, compared with 9.5 per cent of non-FSM pupils. Just one private school alone produces 175 pupils who get three As at A Level – almost as many as the entire cohort of FSM pupils, of whom 189 reach this standard (excluding those at sixth form colleges). This is partially because the drop-out rate among FSM pupils is so high: Government figures suggest that just 6 per cent of FSM pupils stay on at school post-16 (DCSF, Key Stage 1 Attainment by Pupil Characteristics, in England 2008/9, 8 December 2009; DCSF, Key Stage 2 Attainment by Pupil Characteristics, in England 2008/9, 19 November 2009; Hansard, 21 January 2010, col. 463W; Hansard, 26 November 2008, Col. 1859WA; Hansard, 3 March 2008, Col. 2152 WA).
Labour’s Two Nations
15
• UK Has Largest State/Private Gap in Class Sizes. Class sizes in state funded primaries in the UK are the third largest in the OECD. In the UK, class sizes at private primary schools average 13.1 pupils per class - half the size of those in the state sector (25.8). This is the widest state/private gap in class sizes in the OECD. In UK secondary schools, pupil to teaching staff ratios in private schools average just 6.5 pupils per teacher – less than half the figure for the state sector (14.7). This is the third widest state/private gap in the OECD, after Mexico and Turkey (OECD, Education at a Glance, 2009).
• Pupils from poorer backgrounds are five times more likely to be persistent truants. In the ten per cent most deprived areas of England, pupils are five times more likely to be persistent truants (defined as those who typically miss 1 in 5 school days), compared with their peers in the 10 per cent least deprived areas (DCSF, Pupil Absence in Schools in England, Including Pupil Characteristics, 2007/8, 26 February 2009).
Labour’s Two Nations
16
• Disadvantage and Discipline. Children who are eligible for free school meals are 3 times more likely to receive either a permanent or fixed period exclusion than children who are not eligible for free school meals. A third of all suspensions involve FSM pupils (DCSF, Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions in England 2007/8, 30 July 2009). • Gap between rich and poor widening at GCSE and A-level. The gap between rich and poor pupils has widened significantly at both GCSE and A-level since last year. The gap between the richest ten per cent and poorest ten per cent of pupils achieving five good GCSEs including English and maths has widened by a fifth. The gap between the richest ten per cent and poorest ten percent of pupils achieving three As at A-level has increased by half, and the proportion of children from the most deprived areas achieving three As at A-level has actually fallen (DCSF, GCSE and A-level results 2008/9, 13 January 2010). • Children from wealthy backgrounds are almost three times as likely to go to university. Just one in five disadvantaged youngsters go to university, compared to well over half of young people from wealthier backgrounds; and this gap is getting wider over time (HEFCE, Trends in Young Participation in Higher Education, January 2010).
Labour’s Two Nations: Housing In the most deprived areas, you are far more likely to be homeless, and you are twice as likely to be on a waiting list for social housing. Families in temporary housing lack the security they need to hold down work and provide a stable family life. In the most deprived local authorities: • People are twice as likely to be on a waiting list for social housing. In the ten most deprived local authorities one in ten households is on a waiting list for social housing. In the least deprived local authorities that figure is one in twenty (DCLG, Table 600, Rents, Lettings and Tenancies: Numbers on Local Authorities’ Households Waiting Lists by District, England 1997-2009). • Households are four times more likely to be homeless. 4 in every 1000 households in the most deprived areas are homeless and in priority need of housing. That compares to just 1 in every 1000 households in the least deprived areas (DCLG, Table 627, Local Authorities’ Action Under the Homelessness Provisions of the Housing Acts: Financial Year 2008/09).
Labour’s Two Nations
17
Labour’s Record on Housing • Soaring Waiting Lists. The number of households on local authority waiting lists for social housing in England rose from 1,062,179 in 1996 to 1.8 million in 2009 (Hansard, 13 June 2007, Col. 1076WA; DCLG, Local Authority Housing Statistics, England: 2008-09, 26 November 2009).
• New Social Housing Halved. Half as many homes have been built or purchased for social rent under Labour than under the last Conservative Government. Between 1992-93 and 1996-97, an average of 51,514 social dwellings were built or acquired every year. By contrast, under Labour, from 1997-98 to 2007-08, only 27,097 social units a year were built or acquired (Hansard, 4 June 2009, Col. 680WA). • Less social housing has been built in every year under the Labour Government (1997-2008) than under the last Conservative Governments (1979-96). An average of 18,428 homes a year have been built under this Government, compared with 40,538 a year under the last Government (DCLG, Live Tables: House building, Table 244, as of August 2009; figures for social housing completions in England). • More Overcrowding. Overcrowding in the private rented sector increased from 3.2 per cent in 1995-96 to 4.9 per cent in 2007-08, which the Government described as ‘a statistically significant increase’ (DCLG, Fifteen years of the Survey of English Housing: 1993-94 to 2007-08, September 2009, p.14). • 6.8 per cent of households in London were living in overcrowded accommodation in 2007-08; the level of overcrowding was highest in the rented sectors: rising from 10.6 per cent in 1995-96 to 12.7 per cent in 200708 for social renters and from 5.4 per cent to 9.8 per cent for private renters in London (DCLG, Fifteen years of the Survey of English Housing: 1993-94 to 2007-08, September 2009, p.15).
Labour’s Two Nations
18
Promoted by Alan Mabbutt on behalf of the Conservative Party both of 30 Millbank, London SW1P 4DP.