Notes on the Front

School has just been let out for children and, on the electoral campus, for the Left. For children, it is a time for play, for the Left it is a time for reflection. And in one small way, the lessons to be learned can be of benefit for both children and the Left. Let’s start with children and their families.

Going back to school is a costly matter. Recently, both Barnardos and the Labour Party have given us some specific figures. Barnardos stated that:

• A family with one child going into first year secondary school face a book bill of over €300 — the equivalent of two weeks food shopping for a family of four.
• Two children in secondary school can mean parents are spending over €500 on books — almost two thirds of an average monthly mortgage repayment in Dublin (note: this was a statement from 2006 – mortgage payments have increased considerably since then; but the point is still taken).

Labour’s Education Spokesperson, Jan O’Sullivan TD, in an excellent analysis of back-to-school costs, puts an even higher figure on this when clothing is included: an additional €310 per primary school child, €412 per secondary school child. And this doesn’t count incidentals – stationary, etc. It’s a costly business, this, putting children through school. And with our ‘free’ education system, parents are frequently asked for ‘voluntary’ contributions, or fees by another name.

The state provides some assistance. The Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance provides €180 for each primary school child and €285 for secondary level. The payments are inadequate but the worst part of this scheme is that it is means-tested to a very narrow degree. Essentially, you have to either be a social welfare recipient or in a training/employment scheme. If you land a job, you’ll most likely lose the payment (for a household with two secondary students that would mean a loss of €570 – so much for the vaunted ‘incentive to work’).

The Department of Social Affairs, in its latest Statistical Report, states that there are 157,000 children for whom this payment is made. Even more interesting is that while there was an increase in the number of payments made over the previous year, the actual cost of the programme decreased. Now that’s ‘value for poor money’.

Let’s leave this for a moment and see how another set of pupils are doing – the Left. Already, the debate in Labour has commenced. Some are suggesting the party should become more ‘left-wing’ and become the champion of the poor, the marginalised, the working class. I’m all for that, except I’d like to see what are the ‘left-wing’ policies referred to. Then there’s Michael McLoughlin, Labour’s International Secretary, writing in the Irish Times, calling on the Party to

‘project a policy platform that means something to . . . an Ireland where the bulk of people are middle class . . . ‘.

I think I sort of know what that means but the use of the word middle class is bound to confuse. So, left-wing ‘working class’ or relevant to the ‘middle class’: can we make these seemingly divergent approaches cohere into one platform? Let’s use the issue of back to school payments as a test case.

Barnardos calls for the Allowance to be extended to all families in receipt of Family Income Supplement – the means-tested programme for low-paid households. Labour supports this with an additional call for higher payments – €220 for primary school children and €290 for secondary level.

Though obviously this would be better than the current operation, it’s still incrementalist. There are 38,000 children benefiting from the FIS. So, at maximum there would be an additional 20% benefiting. And Labour’s payment demands were pretty much met by the Government. So even if the Government met these twin demands the programme would still be woefully under-funded, means-tested and retains a step-effect (that is, you lose the entire payment once you exceed a certain income threshold).

That’s the problem with so many of these means-tested schemes:  programmes ‘targeted’ at the poor are invariably poor programmes. On our ideological campus, such proposals fail to vindicate either a ‘left-wing’ or ‘middle-class’ approach – especially as middle-strata families are excluded, even though average income households suffer from these costs. Here’s a proposal to satisfy both schools:

• Scrap the means-test element of the Back-to-School scheme.
• Make the payment in respect of all children regardless of income or employment status.
• Substantially increase the payments.
• And then tax it.

In one fell swoop, we transform a minimalist scheme into a universal one. All families benefit – and at a time when all families face very high bills. There would be no step-effect or disincentives to work. And because it’s taxed, money is directed to those most in need, with those outside the tax net keeping the full value while those on the higher tax rate only receiving about half the value.

If, for, instance payments were increased along the following lines:

• €500 for primary children
• €750 for secondary children,

and then taxed, the cost of that programme would be an additional €400 million – about 2% of the total Social Affairs budget. This would offer far better value than attempting to subsidise school costs through increasing Child Benefit, which would be extremely expensive and untargeted.

In down-turn times, programmes for the poor are usually the first to get the chop or, at least, be downsized. Most people would be unaware of the cuts because they have no stake in the programme. In universal schemes, however, everyone has a stake in the system – just as with Child Benefit.

That is a way of re-thinking the Welfare state – it’s not for poor people, it’s for all people, with everyone prospering. Here is an example where lower-income groups disproportionately benefit while maintaining the benefit if they move into work (thus satisfying the ‘left-wing’ argument) while those in the middle strata benefit as well (thus satisfying the ‘middle class’ argument). We can extend this model of taxed universal payments to a range of social protection and benefit measures (housing, medical cards, pay-related benefits, etc. – there’s literally a whole world of social measures to rethink). And we can give it a nice buzz-word: modernisation.

If the policy debate on the Left breaks down along a ‘working-class’ and ‘middle class’ lines, then we are in danger of merely debating slogans. We will deserve to disappear up some black-hole of irrelevancy. Let’s ditch the labels and do what every other child will start doing in a couple of month’s time: homework.

We’ll be the better for it.