Long-awaited emergency intervention

Baroness Joyce Gould discusses the impact the long-awaited emergency intervention funding will have

Yesterday the government announced long-awaited emergency intervention in the crisis of the Rape Crisis sector. It is a relief that the Government has responded before the end of this current financial year to the appeal. Most Rape Crisis Centres are in critical situations in terms of their funding and this announcement will allow groups to remain open so they will no longer have to reduce or freeze their service provision to the victims of sexual violence.

I am also delighted that the emergency funding has been agreed by a range of government departments including the Department for Communities and Local Government, Government Equalities Office, Department for Health, Home Office, Ministry of Justice, and the Cabinet Office. It is essential that these departments continue to work together to take responsibility for the support and well-being of victims of sexual violence, as well as violence against women more broadly.

On 6 March 2008 -- International Women’s Day -- I opened the annual debate in the House of Lords, in which I referred to the cost to society of violence against women. Putting together the health costs, loss of employment costs and costs to the criminal justice system, domestic violence alone costs £23 billion per year and the health-related cost of a rape is now calculated at £73,487 per case. Every 34 minutes a rape is reported.

My involvement in raising awareness of and preventing sexual violence also extends to my role as Patron of FORWARD (The Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development) which is committed to eliminating Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), child marriage, and other harmful gender-based discriminatory practices that violate the rights of women.

There are complex interrelations between all elements of violence, be they domestic violence, rape, sexual abuse, FGM, forced marriage, trafficking or honour killings. Each require a long term, integrated strategy that includes prevention work, with clear targeted funding and evaluation. The FGM Act of 2003 attempts to prevent girls from being taken out of the country for FGM, but policies such as these are often disconnected and as a consequence good policy does not always have an impact on the ground. The Government has yet to fund a comprehensive prevalence study on FGM, without which a robust argument for funding cannot be made. There is no strategy to implement or monitor the law, and no prosecutions have been made since the law was passed in 1958, despite estimates that about 7,000 girls are at risk.

I am also Chair of the Women’s National Commission (WNC), an umbrella organisation set up in 1969 to advise Government on the views of women in the UK. The WNC now have almost 500 partners reflecting the views of some 8 million women across the UK. Year after year, these women tell us that violence against women is a top priority for them, which is why the WNC Violence Against Women Group is one of the biggest and longest running of our working groups. We also run a Sexual Violence Group which monitors policy on all forms of sexual violence including prostitution, FGM, rape, and sexual assault. The Group is made up of service providers, academics, and liaises with Home Office officials on all aspects of sexual violence including trafficking and FGM. The Group is chaired by one of our WNC Commissioners and a leading expert in the field, Professor Liz Kelly. As WNC Chair, I have also been working closely with services providers and other experts from the sexual violence field who are campaigning for increased, secured funding especially for the rape crisis sector.

The Women’s National Commission also advocates on behalf of sexual violence support services in other ways. The four-yearly production of the Shadow Report for the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) outlines current progress by the Government on all issues relevant to women including sexual violence, detailing areas such as trafficking of women and girls, child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, women in prostitution, women in adult entertainment, sexual offences, marital rape and FGM. The Report can be found on our website.

An integral part of awareness-raising on sexual violence is sex education in schools. Compulsory relationship and sex education which, if taken seriously by Government and senior staff in schools alike, will be a step towards ending sexual violence. It is imperative that young men are taught from an early age about consent and that violence against women forms a core module of this. Without this, we cannot hope to change attitudes that condone violence against women and hold women responsible for the violence that is committed against them.

Yesterday, Dr Nicole Westmarland, Chair of Rape Crisis England and Wales, welcomed the Government’s commitment to work towards the development of a ‘sustainable business model’ for the longer term. It is vital that we now work very closely across government departments and that this is led by the Minister for Women and Equalities.’ I would add that it is also vital we understand violence against women as a root cause and consequence of inequality.

Baroness Joyce Gould is the Chair of the Women's National Commission.

Jeremy Corbyn. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it

Brexit affords the British left a historic opportunity for a decisive break with EU market liberalism.

The Brexit vote to leave the European Union has many parents, but "Lexit" – the argument for exiting the EU from the left – remains an orphan. A third of Labour voters backed Leave, but they did so without any significant leadership from the Labour Party. Left-of-centre votes proved decisive in determining the outcome of a referendum that was otherwise framed, shaped, and presented almost exclusively by the right. A proper left discussion of the issues has been, if not entirely absent, then decidedly marginal – part of a more general malaise when it comes to developing left alternatives that has begun to be corrected only recently, under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Ceding Brexit to the right was very nearly the most serious strategic mistake by the British left since the ‘70s. Under successive leaders Labour became so incorporated into the ideology of Europeanism as to preclude any clear-eyed critical analysis of the actually existing EU as a regulatory and trade regime pursuing deep economic integration. The same political journey that carried Labour into its technocratic embrace of the EU also resulted in the abandonment of any form of distinctive economics separate from the orthodoxies of market liberalism.

It’s been astounding to witness so many left-wingers, in meltdown over Brexit, resort to parroting liberal economics. Thus we hear that factor mobility isn’t about labour arbitrage, that public services aren’t under pressure, that we must prioritise foreign direct investment and trade. It’s little wonder Labour became so detached from its base. Such claims do not match the lived experience of ordinary people in regions of the country devastated by deindustrialisation and disinvestment.

Nor should concerns about wage stagnation and bargaining power be met with finger-wagging accusations of racism, as if the manner in which capitalism pits workers against each other hasn’t long been understood. Instead, we should be offering real solutions – including a willingness to rethink capital mobility and trade. This places us in direct conflict with the constitutionalised neoliberalism of the EU.

Only the political savvy of the leadership has enabled Labour to recover from its disastrous positioning post-referendum. Incredibly, what seemed an unbeatable electoral bloc around Theresa May has been deftly prized apart in the course of an extraordinary General Election campaign. To consolidate the political project they have initiated, Corbyn and McDonnell must now follow through with a truly radical economic programme. The place to look for inspiration is precisely the range of instruments and policy options discouraged or outright forbidden by the EU.

A neoliberal project

The fact that right-wing arguments for Leave predominated during the referendum says far more about today’s left than it does about the European Union. There has been a great deal of myth-making concerning the latter –much of it funded, directly or indirectly, by the EU itself.

From its inception, the EU has been a top-down project driven by political and administrative elites, "a protected sphere", in the judgment of the late Peter Mair, "in which policy-making can evade the constraints imposed by representative democracy". To complain about the EU’s "democratic deficit" is to have misunderstood its purpose. The main thrust of European economic policy has been to extend and deepen the market through liberalisation, privatisation, and flexiblisation, subordinating employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness.

Prospects for Keynesian reflationary policies, or even for pan-European economic planning – never great – soon gave way to more Hayekian conceptions. Hayek’s original insight, in The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism, was that free movement of capital, goods, and labour – a "single market" – among a federation of nations would severely and necessarily restrict the economic policy space available to individual members. Pro-European socialists, whose aim had been to acquire new supranational options for the regulation of capital, found themselves surrendering the tools they already possessed at home. The national road to socialism, or even to social democracy, was closed.

The direction of travel has been singular and unrelenting. To take one example, workers’ rights – a supposed EU strength – are steadily being eroded, as can be seen in landmark judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Viking and Laval cases, among others. In both instances, workers attempting to strike in protest at plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-wage workers from another, were told their right to strike could not infringe upon the "four freedoms" – free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services – established by the treaties.

More broadly, on trade, financial regulation, state aid, government purchasing, public service delivery, and more, any attempt to create a different kind of economy from inside the EU has largely been forestalled by competition policy or single market regulation.

A new political economy

Given that the UK will soon be escaping the EU, what opportunities might this afford? Three policy directions immediately stand out: public ownership, industrial strategy, and procurement. In each case, EU regulation previously stood in the way of promising left strategies. In each case, the political and economic returns from bold departures from neoliberal orthodoxy after Brexit could be substantial.

While not banned outright by EU law, public ownership is severely discouraged and disadvantaged by it. ECJ interpretation of Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has steadily eroded public ownership options. "The ECJ", argues law professor Danny Nicol, "appears to have constructed a one-way street in favour of private-sector provision: nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed for their necessity". Sure enough, the EU has been a significant driver of privatisation, functioning like a ratchet. It’s much easier for a member state to pursue the liberalisation of sectors than to secure their (re)nationalisation. Article 59 (TFEU) specifically allows the European Council and Parliament to liberalise services. Since the ‘80s, there have been single market programmes in energy, transport, postal services, telecommunications, education, and health.

Britain has long been an extreme outlier on privatisation, responsible for 40 per cent of the total assets privatised across the OECD between 1980 and 1996. Today, however, increasing inequality, poverty, environmental degradation and the general sense of an impoverished public sphere are leading to growing calls for renewed public ownership (albeit in new, more democratic forms). Soon to be free of EU constraints, it’s time to explore an expanded and fundamentally reimagined UK public sector.

Next, Britain’s industrial production has been virtually flat since the late 1990s, with a yawning trade deficit in industrial goods. Any serious industrial strategy to address the structural weaknesses of UK manufacturing will rely on "state aid" – the nurturing of a next generation of companies through grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, government holdings, and the provision of goods and services on a preferential basis.

Article 107 TFEU allows for state aid only if it is compatible with the internal market and does not distort competition, laying out the specific circumstances in which it could be lawful. Whether or not state aid meets these criteria is at the sole discretion of the Commission – and courts in member states are obligated to enforce the commission’s decisions. The Commission has adopted an approach that considers, among other things, the existence of market failure, the effectiveness of other options, and the impact on the market and competition, thereby allowing state aid only in exceptional circumstances.

For many parts of the UK, the challenges of industrial decline remain starkly present – entire communities are thrown on the scrap heap, with all the associated capital and carbon costs and wasted lives. It’s high time the left returned to the possibilities inherent in a proactive industrial strategy. A true community-sustaining industrial strategy would consist of the deliberate direction of capital to sectors, localities, and regions, so as to balance out market trends and prevent communities from falling into decay, while also ensuring the investment in research and development necessary to maintain a highly productive economy. Policy, in this vision, would function to re-deploy infrastructure, production facilities, and workers left unemployed because of a shutdown or increased automation.

In some cases, this might mean assistance to workers or localities to buy up facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. In other cases it might involve re-training workers for new skills and re-fitting facilities. A regional approach might help launch new enterprises that would eventually be spun off as worker or local community-owned firms, supporting the development of strong and vibrant network economies, perhaps on the basis of a Green New Deal. All of this will be possible post-Brexit, under a Corbyn government.

Lastly, there is procurement. Under EU law, explicitly linking public procurement to local entities or social needs is difficult. The ECJ has ruled that, even if there is no specific legislation, procurement activity must "comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality". This means that all procurement contracts must be open to all bidders across the EU, and public authorities must advertise contracts widely in other EU countries. In 2004, the European Parliament and Council issued two directives establishing the criteria governing such contracts: "lowest price only" and "most economically advantageous tender".

Unleashed from EU constraints, there are major opportunities for targeting large-scale public procurement to rebuild and transform communities, cities, and regions. The vision behind the celebrated Preston Model of community wealth building – inspired by the work of our own organisation, The Democracy Collaborative, in Cleveland, Ohio – leverages public procurement and the stabilising power of place-based anchor institutions (governments, hospitals, universities) to support rooted, participatory, democratic local economies built around multipliers. In this way, public funds can be made to do "double duty"; anchoring jobs and building community wealth, reversing long-term economic decline. This suggests the viability of a very different economic approach and potential for a winning political coalition, building support for a new socialist economics from the ground up.

With the prospect of a Corbyn government now tantalisingly close, it’s imperative that Labour reconciles its policy objectives in the Brexit negotiations with its plans for a radical economic transformation and redistribution of power and wealth. Only by pursuing strategies capable of re-establishing broad control over the national economy can Labour hope to manage the coming period of pain and dislocation following Brexit. Based on new institutions and approaches and the centrality of ownership and control, democracy, and participation, we should be busy assembling the tools and strategies that will allow departure from the EU to open up new political-economic horizons in Britain and bring about the profound transformation the country so desperately wants and needs.

Joe Guinan is executive director of the Next System Project at The Democracy Collaborative. Thomas M. Hanna is research director at The Democracy Collaborative.

This is an extract from a longer essay which appears in the inaugural edition of the IPPR Progressive Review.