Green Wage Subsidy Motion for Green Party Conference

Great! I've just heard from Standing Orders Committee, and the Green Wage Subsidy motion to next Green Party Conference got enough seconders, and is down on the agenda. Thanks guys!

Next item will be to give it loads of prioritisation votes so that it gets debated. Please if you are a Green Party member, keep an eye on the prioritisation ballot, and give the GWS motion a boost. 

If you are going to conference, please be prepared to speak in favour of the motion, in case there is a move to talk it down from any quarters.

Here is the amended motion  as it stands now:

Green Wage Subsidy Motion

Synopsis

We find ourselves in a situation of high unemployment, whichcauses illness, poverty and may lead to disaffection, which can play into thehands of political extremists. Rightly handled, the present crisis may end ofthe present quasi-free-market system, and out of the ruins we can create agreen economy.

The Motion:

Green Wage Subsidy

Add in the PFSS after EC733:

EC734 One of the weaknesses of free-market capitalism is itstendency to undergo periodic downswings, recessions and depressions, whichcause widespread hardship through unemployment and poverty, together with therisks of political instability and war. In a recession – as indeed in anormally functioning economy - we must ensure that the economy is restarted ina green way.  We can create a healthyand beneficial demand in the economy by addressing ecological needs (that is,the needs of environment and society) meaningfully, and at the same timeprepare the ground for the introduction of Citizen’s Income by turningunemployment benefits into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) as set out below.

 EC735 Every  local authority will be required to set up aTribunal empowered to judge, systematically according to set criteria, whetherthe processes and product of public services or private enterprise who comebefore them are of net benefit to society and/or environment.

Applicants would typically be operating in the followingfields:

1. energy conservation
2. renewable energy technologies
3. energy efficient goods manufacture
4. pollution control technology
5. waste minimisation
6. repair
7. recycling
8. water management
9. sustainable agriculture
10. forestry and timber use
11. countryside management
12. housing - new building and refurbishment
13. improvements to visual environment
14. public transport
15. education and training
16. counselling, caring and healing
17. community work
18. leisure and tourism
19. innovation, research and development
20. in some high unemployment areas, any ethical business which passes a certain threshold in its environmental audit.

EC736. Businesses and public enterprises who think they might qualify may go to the Tribunals seeking "Green Accreditation”. Any economic grouping may apply: public services including local authorities, co-operatives, and private enterprises. The sole criterion for acceptance is that the outcome of their work is to the benefit of society and environment. If successful, they may take on new workers (i.e. in addition to their present establishment) from Job Centres. New workers taken on under this scheme will be allowed to keep their unemployment benefit in their new job. This can be seen as an extension of the present “Earnings Disregard”. In this way, the present “Job Seekers’ Allowance” and other forms of unemployment benefit change from being a “dead dole” into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) which stimulates the green sector of the local economy.


An appeal process will be provided to check on the decisions of the Tribunals when necessary.

EC737 The employer would bring the remuneration of the GWSworker up to the appropriate normal rate of pay for the job, taking account ofminimum wage and the Living Wage. The result is that the worker has employmentand a better income as a result of taking on work, while the employer has abigger workforce for a smaller outlay than would normally be the case. There isno time limit for this arrangement, so that in this regard it behaves in thesame way as a Citizen’s Income (CI).

EC738 It will be illegal for employers to replace previousestablishment with GWS workers, and if workers believe that they have been soreplaced they can make a complaint to the Tribunals, who would have powers toreinstate the worker or, in the case of repeated offences, to revoke theoffending company’s accreditation. Participation in the scheme will be entirelyvoluntary on the part of employees and employers. The scheme will stand outsideof any existent rules which provide sanctions for claimants who refuse work,and in the event of a claimant refusing work offered by accredited employers,there will not be any withdrawal of benefit.

EC739 In order to avoid unfair competition betweenestablished companies and putative start-up companies, those companies applyingfor accreditation must have been in existence for at least five years. Inspecial local circumstances, this rule may be adjusted by the Tribunal. 

EC740 The GWS money would otherwise have been given tounemployed people on condition that they do nothing apart from being obliged toprepare themselves for generally non-existent work. This is the present statusof Unemployment Benefit, and is the cause of the present notorious unemploymentand poverty traps. Therefore, in the short term GWS would present no cost topublic sector finances, since the money would have been paid out in any case.Some of the GWS money would come back to Government in the form of increasedtax revenues from firms which have benefited, and yet more would come back tosociety in qualitative improvements such as improved services, diminishedinequality and improved morals.  Becausethe GWS is permanent (as opposed to being time limited, which is the case withsimilar benefits at present) there would be a long term cost analogous to thatof CI. These costs are consonant with Keynesian doctrine of the statestimulating work in times of economic depression.

Proposed by: Richard Lawson

North Somerset GP

Outcome:
Referred back after a travesty of a debate
Costing the GWS
Piloting the GWS

Green Wage Subsidy Debate

It is two weeks to the start of Green Party Conference in Liverpool. Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) is up for debate, for the third (and as far as I am concerned, final,) time.

 In essence, GWS is legalised moonlighting. It allows a claimant to take his/her benefit (JSA &c) into work, so that it changes from being a dead dole into a subsidy for the green economy. It will benefit the UK to the tune of about £10 billion a year. The text of the motion is here.

I have seen a discussion on a Green Party email list that puts up some objections. I will answer them briefly here, as it would be a great pity if the GP made a decision that condemned people to further years on the "scrapheap" of life on the dole.

Unemployment is clearly a massive market failure, a device designed by the Tories (whether they know it or not) to drive down wages. Citizens Income (CI) is the Green Party response to the Byzantine comlexity of the benefits system, but CI is forever countered by the kneejerk "Oh that's a Shirker's Charter" response, as anyone who has tried to explain it on the doorstep will know.

GWS neatly sidesteps the Shirkers Charter argument by applying the other side of CI - the bit that says you can take CI into work with you.

My response to the points made:

1 GWS would undermine the living wage campaign Would it? No. Note that the income of the new employee is brought up to Living Wage levels.

2 If there is worthwhile environmental work to be done, ideally it should be done via a public service employing people at the right rate;
There's no "if" about it. There IS. And vital work to help people directly too.
"Ideally". Do not ever let the ideal get in the way of the better. This is politics we're doing here, not writing a tractatus of philosophy of idealistic structualism.

"At the right rate"; the employee does get the right rate.

3 how would we know that an employer couldn't afford to create a new job without the subsidy?
Er - because s/he isn't.

4 How would we know that they hadn't shed posts a few months back so they could now claim a subsidy?
Beause the tirbunal could look at their NIC records a few months back.

5 Would admin roles be included, and if so what if supporting green work was only a portio of their role?
Of course jobs at every level within the company (=all enterprises, public and private) are included. If the company is doing good work, everyone is contributing.

6 why ban payments to companies less than 5 years old - doesnt that support established big business rather than small, local businesses?
Good point. The concern here is that new set-ups with 100% GSW employees would have an unfair advantage. The way is to find out how things pan out in practice.

7 Seebohm Rowntree, when was setting up the principles he advocated for decent employment on a living wage back in the 1920s, argued that if an employer couldn't pay a living wage without subsidies, then they were parasitical

Was Seebohm Rowntree talking about employers in green concerns? By definition, green work is not parasitical, is it?

8 I don't particularly like it. I think we should oppose it OK. No answer to that

9 GWS would lead to the exploitation of young and vulnerable people. it aims to rule out compulsion it is difficult to see how it could work without it. It could simply provide a green wash to cover up exploitation and could undermine existing green policies in relation to workers' rights,a living wage and Citizen's Income.
Please explain why.
In particular, GWS is a precursor to CI, in that it demonstrates how CI would work.
The "compulsion" argument sounds like a replication of the Tory argument "The working class is lazy and feckless and needs to be compelled to work". As we all know this is an outrageous libel. There is loads of science of the role of work in a happy life.

10 Is this anything more than a reformist measure which deals with one aspect of the current economic status quo, when a far more radical transformation is needed ?
OK, if we are against reformism, why have we bust our guts over the last 30 years in electing 140 local authority councillors and 1 MP? Why arent we selling newpapers that preach total radical transformation?

11 we should be moving away from subsidising poor paying employers,
OK, so do we want to withdraw Working Family Credit, that keeps loads of families afloat, and is one of the most popular benefits around?

12 It isn't perfect. 

(I added this one myself, because it underlies nearly all objectons to GWS).
True. It is not perfect, not ready to be passed as a Bill in Parliament. This is because, like everyone here, I am not a perfect person, and in particular am not a lawyer or a Civil Servant. We are writing Green Party policy here, sketching out ideas, not writing primary legislation.

So - thanks for reading. Obvs I have been very brief, and sorry if I sound brusque, just pressure of time. My main concern at the moment is floods (plenty of work needs to be done on flood preventon).

The essence is that unemployment is a whip that the Tories use to beat working class people into submission. It makes people and communities sick - literally. Read my book, Bills of Health, if you want to know the medical impact of unemployment on health.

At the same time, there is a vast amount of work to be done - good work, work that heals the planet, heals the environment, heals the community, heals the vulnerable. Here we have an innovative, very simple, uniquely Green solution. It is what the Green Party needs, it is what the working class needs, it is what the nation needs. It can be piloted tomorrow in your local authority.

Why would the GP want to oppose it?

If you are a GP member who is going to conference, please put in a speaker slip to speak in favour of the GWS motion, even if it is to be just a simple statement to counter Objection Number 8. Debate at GP conference is often determined more by the number (and intensity) of speakers, rather than the quality of the argumentation. Having said that, all reason points to the value of Green Wage Subsidy, both to the Green Party and the nation.

Green Wage Subsidy at Green Party Conference

I have submitted the following  motion to Standing Orders Comittee for voting at the next Green Party Conference.

If you are a member of the Green Party and would like it to be debated, please go to the member's site at www.greenparty.org.uk, find the motion and sign up to support it there if there is any debate.

The motion needs seconders. Please email Standing Orders Committee (SOC) - as a member you will be able to find their address on the members site. You need to be able to supply your local party and membership number. This needs to be done after Nov 14th but before Nov 30th.

Amendments to the motion first posted here, arising out of discussions, are shown in bold.

Thanks for your support.
Richard

[update] The motion has been submitted and seconded, so will get debated if enough of us vote on its prioritisation. There is a slightly amended version up here.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Green Wage Subsidy Motion



Synopsis

We find ourselves in a long recession marked by high unemployment, from which the recovery is slow and uncertain. While this downturn has caused a slight reduction in the UK’s CO2 output, it carries political risks. Our political opponents wrongly assume that recession means that people are no longer interested in environmental matters. High unemployment causes poverty and may cause disaffection, which can play into the hands of political extremists. We should remember that WWII followed the Depression of the 1930s.



As well as being a threat, an economic depression also provides an opportunity to green the British, and also the world, economy. Rightly handled, the present crisis may signal the end of the present quasi-free-market system, and out of the ruins we can create a green economy, based on energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainability



The Motion:



Green Wage Subsidy



Add in the PFSS after EC733:



EC734 One of the weaknesses of free-market capitalism is its tendency to undergo periodic downswings, recessions and depressions, which cause widespread hardship through unemployment and poverty, together with the risks of political instability and war. In a recession, and also in a normally functioning economy, we must ensure that the economy is restarted in a green way. We can create a healthy and beneficial demand in the economy by addressing ecological needs (that is, the needs of environment and society) meaningfully, and at the same time prepare the ground for an introduction of Citizen’s Income by turning unemployment benefits into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) as set out below.



EC735 Every local authority will be required to set up Tribunals empowered to judge, systematically according to set criteria, whether the processes and product of public services or private enterprise who come before them are of net benefit to society and/or environment.



Applicants would typically be operating in the following fields:



1. energy conservation

2. renewable energy technologies

3. energy efficient goods manufacture

4. pollution control technology

5. waste minimisation

6. repair

7. recycling

8. water management

9. sustainable agriculture

10. forestry and timber use

11. countryside management

12. housing - new building and refurbishment

13. improvements to visual environment

14. public transport

15. education and training

16. counselling, caring and healing

17. community work

18. leisure and tourism

19. innovation, research and development

20. in some high unemployment areas, any ethical business which passes a certain threshold in its environmental audit.


EC736. Businesses and public enterprises who think they might qualify may go to the Tribunals seeking "Green Accreditation”. Any economic grouping may apply: public services including local authorities, co-operatives, and private enterprises. The sole criterion for acceptance is that the outcome of their work is to the benefit of society and environment. If successful, they may take on new workers (i.e. in addition to their present establishment) from Job Centres. New workers taken on under this scheme will be allowed to keep their unemployment benefit in their new job. This can be seen as an extension of the present “Earnings Disregard”. In this way, “Job Seekers’ Allowance” and other forms of unemployment benefit change from being a “dead dole” into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) which stimulates the green sector of the local economy.

An appeal process will be provided.



EC737 The new employees will retain their benefit payments on entering their new work, and the employer will  bring their remuneration up to the normal rate of pay for the job they are now doing.  The result is that the worker has work and a better income as a result of taking on work, and the employer has a bigger workforce for a smaller outlay than would normally be the case, as his payroll is now subsidised by the benefits agency.
There is no time limit for this arrangement, so that in this regard it behaves in the same way as a Citizen’s Income (CI).


EC738 It will be illegal for employers to replace previous establishment with GWS workers, and if workers believe that they have been so replaced they can make a complaint to the Tribunals, who would have powers to reinstate the worker or, in the case of repeated offences, to revoke the offending company’s accreditation. Participation in the scheme will be entirely voluntary on the part of both employees and employers. The scheme will be outwith of any existent rules which provide sanctions for claimants who refuse work, and in the event of a claimant refusing work offered by accredited employers, there will not be any withdrawal of benefit.



EC739 In order to avoid unfair competition between established companies and putative start-up companies, those companies applying for accreditation must have been in existence for a five years. In special local circumstances, this rule may be adjusted by the tribunal.


EC740 The GWS money would otherwise have been given to unemployed people on condition that they do nothing, which is the present status of Unemployment Benefit, and is the cause of the present notorious unemployment and poverty traps. Therefore, in the short term there would be no cost to public sector finances, since the money would have been paid out in any case, as unemployment benefit. Some of the GWS money would come back to Government in the form of increased tax revenues, and yet more would come back to society in qualitative improvements such as improved services, diminished inequality and improved morals. Because the GWS is permanent (as opposed to being time limited, which is the case with similar benefits at present) there would be a long term cost analogous to that of CI. These costs are consonant with Keynesian doctrine of the state stimulating work in times of economic depression.



Proposed by: Richard Lawson

North Somerset GP

Membership no 6427

Seconded by……………………………………….

Green Wage Subsidy webinar on Tuesday June 9th

Next Tuesday evening, at 8 pm, I will be presenting a webinar on Zoom about the Green Wage Subsidy. Here are the details:

Topic: NS Green Party - Green New Deal

Time: Jun 9, 2020 20:00 London time

 Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85778485510?pwd=RHpqMDhKZzdEL2xsZTN6bkxzQmxyZz09

Meeting ID: 857 7848 5510

Password: 836741

The aim of the webinar is to get my local Green Party to persuade our MP to help set up a Green Wage Subsidy pilot in North Somerset. However, this is not confined to North Somerset. Anyone can play. Please join the webinar, and lobby your own MP to join this important initiative. 

There is a massive desire on the part of many people, well beyond the boundaries of the Green Party to re-boot the economy in safe and sustainable mode when lock-down is over. GWS is one way of changing the desire into reality. 

Here is a letter to the MP that you can use as a template:

John Penrose MP
House of Commons

London SW1A 0AA

I hope you and your family are safe and well.

The Covid-19 pandemic is bringing on a recession. I hope that you will be ready to help to bring about Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) as a way of countering unemployment caused by the recession.

We need to remove all administrative blocks to people moving into necessary work. The key point is that we must terminate the withdrawal of benefit which happens when a claimant finds work in vital sections of the economy.

This will require the Local Authority to appoint an officer who can issue accreditation to economically active groups whose work is of benefit to the environment or society.

The accredited employer is then able to engage people from the Job Centre, and on top of the benefit they continue to receive, the employer brings the wage up to the going rate for the job. The Job Centre simply notes on the record that the person has obtained work under the GWS.

At this point in time, the ability to hire workers easily, and at a low rate of pay, will be most welcome for the all employers, many of whom are facing unprecedented cash flow problems.

The economically active groups who should benefit from GWS at present are:

1.      NHS

2.      Agriculture, particularly since there is expected to be a lack of seasonal pickers

3.      Education and schools

4.      Water supply

5.      Sewage services

6.      Power services

7.      Builders for vital work such as roof leaks

8.     Waste collection services and other departments in the local authority

As the reinfection rate recedes and the economy is able to open up further, the following  areas of work can benefit from GWS:

      Meeting Environmental needs

1.      Energy conservation

2.      Renewable energy technologies

3.      Energy storage

4.      Energy efficient goods manufacture

5.      Public transport

6.      Pollution control technology

7.      Waste minimisation

8.      Repair

9.      Recycling

10.  Water management

11.  Sustainable agriculture

12.  Forestry and timber use

13.  Countryside management

Meeting human needs

14.  Housing - new building and refurbishment

15.  Improvements to visual environment

16.  Education and training

17.  Counselling, caring, and healing

18.  Community work

19.  Leisure and tourism

20.  Innovation, research, and development in these areas

I am sure you will agree that in the present situation, the removal of the bureaucratic complexities that impede people from moving from benefits to work is a good solution to what is otherwise a very major economic problem, and will significantly reduce the terrible burden that unemployment places on individuals and community.

The beauty of GWS is that it does not need new money: benefit that is at present paid on condition that the recipient does no work, is still paid in the same measure, but under GWS it becomes a subsidy to the vital, life preserving sections of the economy.

To come about, we need your good self to persuade the Treasury to give a derogation to North Somerset Council on the withdrawal of benefit for the purposes of running a pilot scheme.

I very much hope that you will agree to help take this forward.

Kind regards

Labour's back to work scheme not as good as Green Wage Subsidy

Labour have brought out a shiny new plan to get people back in to work.

It applies to people who have been unemployed for 2 years or more (though this period will get shorter).
130,000 will qualify.
It will be compulsory - if you refuse, you lose your benefit.
It will cost £1bn (a year?- not clear), this cost to be met by stopping tax relief on pensions for people earning £150,000+.

Anyone who cares about people can give Labour's little scheme a qualified welcome - the qualifying objection being its compulsory nature.

But Ed Balls' notion is clearly not as good as the Green Wage Subsidy which is up for consideration by Green Party Conference next month, because GWS
- applies to all, not just the long term unemployed
- can meet the needs of up to 2,000,000, not just 130,000
- costs next to nothing
-is 100% voluntary

- and in addition can continue indefinitely, leading on to full Citizens (Basic) Income
- and will lead to the greening of the whole economy.

In short, the Green Wage Subsidy idea is much better than Ed Balls idea, which is in turn better than the Coalition's idea. Because the Coalition has  no idea how to get people back into work.

If you are a Green Party member and are going to Conference, please read up on the Green Wage Subsidy, and prepare to speak for it and vote for it. Thanks.

Green Wage Subsidy: understanding the mental block

Random Sheep

We had an illuminating debate at my local North Somerset Green Party meeting last night. I reported back on Conference, and presented the plan that we should set up a pilot for the Green Wage 
Subsidy (GWS) in a ward in Weston. An interesting debate followed.

One respected and hard working member believed that the Trades Unions would and should oppose the scheme. She was opposed to any wage subsidy in any form. She opposed Working Tax Credit.  The employers should pay a decent living wage in the first place, and not need to have a wage subsidy of any kind.

The scales fell from my eyes. I have encountered this objection before, but just thought it was a trivial petty prejudice against employers. I now realise that it goes deep, deep into the pit of thousands of bitter wrangles between bosses and workers. It explains why the GWS has been met with impenetrable silence within Green Left, and why perhaps the Work Foundation has failed to respond to my paper on GWS.

Rejection of, or rather, non-engagement with, GWS is founded, at least in part, on an atavistic oppositional emotion against The Bosses. The animus is understandable, given the long and bitter history of conflict between bosses and labourers, but in the present context it is totally counterproductive.
It is a case of  perfection being the enemy of the good, of an ideal blocking a pragmatic reform..

Ironically, it is also a mirror of why Free Market Fundamentalists would oppose GWS, as an unwarranted interference in the market. They love unemployment, because it drives wages down, as starving wretches crawl at the feet of employers begging for work.

Given the real situation in the UK with 1-2 million unemployed or underemployed, kept in poverty and enforced idleness by an unfit-for-purpose, inefficient benefit system, GWS offers full employment and a greening of the economy, but it gets to be opposed because it means that employers do not have to pay a full wage out of their own pockets. Instead, the state ensures that the employees get a decent living wage, and at the same time, the employers' wage bill goes down, so they can take on more labour.

Because of their principles, that employers must pay all the wage, high wages with no help from the state, the unionist is committed to supporting the present system to the bitter end, until it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, and is superseded by the revolution where perfection reigns everywhere, and, er, the state pays all wages. Hmmm.

At least, that seems to be the argument as far as I can make out. The debate was a bit cramped by lack of time, because the North Somerset Green Party meeting was remarkable for having not just this, but another major political discussion, the second being the dire situation of  Local Government finances thanks to Eric Pickles' enthusiasm for crushing them with his mighty weight.

Anyway, I have learned a lot. I have to meet up with the Trades Unions and persuade them that GWS is not a cunning plot to line the pockets of the bosses, but a pragmatic plan to  make Britain a green and fully employed land. Wish me luck.

PS The sheep photo is just an attempt to brighten up this blog. It in no way implies that people follow their group without thinking things through rigorously. I have full respect for my unionist friend, and am very grateful that she has helped me to understand peoples' problem with GWS.

How Green work can help with real Inclusion in Bristol

Went into Bristol yesterday to Hamilton House to a Green and Black meeting to discuss how to increase inclusion in the green movement. It was organised by Bristol Green Capital with the Cabot Institute of Bristol University.  Caroline Lucas was speaking, and also George Ferguson, but the main inspiring speakers were Zakiya Mckenzie and Jasmine (Jaz) Ketibuah-Foley, who lead the Green and Black initiative, which is intended to increase participation of BAME people in the greening of Bristol.
There was plenty of opportunity for everyone to chip in.

My 2p was that one major source of social exclusion is unemployment, and that it is madness to inflict unemployment on communities and individuals when there is so much good work to be done.
(Answering, Jaz agreed that we need to make inclusion a permanent thing, not just a topic to be discussed at meetings. There is a problem if paid Green workers are taking about inclusion to unpaid BAME volunteers).

That's all I said, because I didn't want to be one of those people who hold forth at length from the floor, but what I would have said is this:

1. Unemployment is known to be bad for the health of communities and individuals.
2. It is totally unreasonable to insist that claimants  spend their whole time applying for jobs that do not exist, and then blaming them because they do not have a job, and paying a dole grudgingly, on condition that they do no work.
3. Universal Credit, the Tories' reform to benefits, is a chaotic, unpleasant mess that is plunging people deeper into poverty.
4. Basic Income (BI) is the ultimate solution to the problem of excessively complex benefits, and is being looked at in several places. 
5. However, BI is (wrongly) seen as expensive and a threat to the work ethic, and as the UK is a backward country, we will be one of the last places to introduce BI (unless we break the stranglehold of the five big media barons, and possibly elect a non-Tory Government).
6. Green Wage Subsidy by-passes the objections to BI, because it allows the principle of BI to be introduced and tested on a local basis, and is built on getting people into good work.
7. Bristol could run a pilot of Green Wage Subsidy.

This is how we could introduce Green Wage Subsidy to Bristol, in order to make Bristol the UK's first full-employment city by stimulating work in the Green/Social sector of Bristol's economy.

1. The Council sets up a small office that can assess enterprises that apply to them.
2. Enterprises - local, social, voluntary, charities, small businesses, public services apply for certification that what they are doing is of benefit to Bristol's environment or people.
3. Groups that gain certification can go to the Job Centre and take on new workers - in addition to their present workforce. 
4. The new workers take their JSA, ESA or other benefit into work with them, and their new employer makes their wage up to the going rate for the job.

That's it. Simple as that. The benefits are transformed from being a dead dole to a stimulus for the Green economy in Bristol.

For more detail on how GWS works, click here.

Costing the Green Wage Subsidy

COSTING THE GREEN WAGE SUBSIDY

The motion on GWS to the Green Party Conference had a note attached to it by Policy Comittee to the effect that it was uncosted. It was referred back. I was not advised that motions should be costed, but no matter, I have done some very rough costings here, and they are interesting. 
Bottom line: if only half successful, GWS could add something like another £10,000,000,000 (£10 billion) to the annual income of UK plc. 

The Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) aims to move towards full employment and stimulate the Green Sector of the economy by transforming existing benefits (primarily unemployment benefits, termed “JSA” at the time of writing 2013, but any other benefits may also be involved) into a wage subsidy by allowing them to behave as though they were Citizen’s Income.

Executive Summary
Conservative cost-benefit estimates of the effects of a GWS working to 50% of full capacity suggest that for an outlay of £34.5million pa, the nation as a whole could benefit to the tune of some £10 billion per annum, possibly more.


Tribunal Costs

Tribunals will be set up in the  346 Local Authorities (LAs) in England and Wales to adjudge the economic groups that will qualify for GWS.

Tribunal: 3 officers at £30k pa each, total £90K pa, add office costs (can be lodged in council buildings) say £100K per tribunal, so total is £34.6million pa.

In doing this we have created about 30,000 admin jobs already – but there will be job losses from administration in other areas, since there will be less pointless activity in  Job Centres chivvying and chasing claimants, putting them through training for jobs that don't exist. But we can let that pass.

Note that the activity of the tribunals will be intense in the first few years of GWS, and will fall to maintenance levels as time passes, so these costs may fall.


Health savings

The NHS will not have to treat as many cases of anxiety, depression, heart attacks, domestic violence, smoking related illness, obesity and alcohol abuse as a result of higher employment levels. In 1996 Bills of Health calculated the health costs of unemployment to the NHS at £17 million. Let us round that up to £20 million now.
The NHS should not have to pay this money back to the Treasury, but in that waiting times will fall, there will be a net benefit accruing to the general economy since people will be off work for a shorter time waiting to be treated, so it is not unfair to set the £20 million off against the admin costs.

So we only £14.6 million to go until we break even on the tribunals’ outlay.


Increased tax revenues

Let us make a conservative estimate, and assume that only 1million extra jobs are created in the early years of the GWS scheme.
National Insurance Contributions (NIC) will be paid by the employer. Say £80 per week times 50 weeks a year times a million = £4 billion.
Then there is the extra tax take from the increased output and profitability of green SME's. This is impossible to quantify, but they would probably be in the region of the NIC take, but let's be conservative, say £1 billion.


Legal Costs Foregone

Monies saved in police, court, prison probation and social service costs are difficult to estimate.
Bills of Health shows that unemployment is related to minor crime such as car theft.
It is reasonable to assume that many unemployed people must supplement their meagre income with fraud and drug dealing. Workless youths will also inevitably be drawn into street gangs.
Let us be really conservative and put these costs foregone at £14.6 million, in order to eliminate the irritating remnant of the admin costs.


National Morale

There is an the effect on general morale which will lift as litter disappears, gardens are planted, the street furniture is brightened up and the neighbourhood starts to buzz. Business confidence will increase.
That must be worth 0.001% on GDP. Another £6 billion. Say five, to be conservative.

Obviously there is more detailed work to be done here, but at this stage I make it we're about £10 billion per annum better off as a result of GWS, working at 50% of maximum (1million jobs created, not the full 2 million).

Medium and Long Term costs

Of course, if the economy picks up, the claimant bill will remain high instead of falling as people go back into conventional work.

But in fact the JSA is a fairly trivial part of Govt spending, so we can argue that point with Tories when (if?) we get to escape from recession.

If the GWS continues, natural unemployment churn will mean that gradually the proportion of people on working on GWS in the green sector of the economy will grow, so that the system will be taking on the characteristics of a full Citizen’s Income. At that stage, public perception of CI will have changed radically, and instead of being seen as an outlandish Hippy’s Charter, CI will be seen as the sensible and efficient measure that it is.


Conclusion

I fully accept that these calculations lack the rigour that a paid firm of consultant accountants would bring to the task, but I would draw to the attention of the Policy Committee the costs that such an consultancy would bring to the Green Party, and I would argue that the margins suggested by this broad brush estimations are large enough to contain any but the most absolutely oppositional criticisms.

GWS Motion to Green Party Conference Spring 2014

The deadline for motions for Spring Conference is almost upon us. If there are any paid-up members of the Green Party reading this who are aware that solving the many ecological problems that we face offers us an opportunity to put an end to the irrational and inhumane social problem of unemployment, I wonder if you would be so kind as to copy the text below and forward it to soc[at]greenparty.org.uk with a message to say that you are seconding it.

It needs to be with SOC by 30th November - sorry about the short notice, but there is a very narrow window for submissions to the first agenda, and I have been away.

Very grateful for any support
Richard

GREEN WAGE SUBSIDY MOTION FOR SPRING 2014

Synopsis 

Unemployment causes illness and poverty at individual and community level. It may lead to alienation, which can play into the hands of political extremists. Youth unemployment is high, and is known to have an economically disabling effect throughout life.

 At the same time, there is a vast amount of work which needs to be done to heal society and environment.

This motion is intended to address these problems by creating a voluntary scheme that converts JSA into a stimulus to the green sector of the economy.

Green Wage Subsidy 

Add in the PFSS after EC733:

EC734 Unemployment has become accepted as a normal part of the modern economy. However, it has severe impacts on the health of individuals and communities. It bears particularly hard on young people, and some studies show that they are scarred for life by the experience of unemployment. Not just poverty and ill-health, but anger, resentment and alienation all result from unemployment.

At the same time as unemployment is inflicted on millions, there is a vast amount of good work left undone, work that would heal society and environment.

Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) aims to address these problems by turning unemployment benefits into a support for beneficial work as set out below.

GWS also prepares the ground for the introduction of full Citizen’s Income

EC735 Every  local authority will be [required][allowed] to set up a small Tribunal, of two or three officers, empowered to judge, systematically according to set criteria, whether the processes and product of employers who come before them are of net benefit to society and/or environment.

Applicants would typically be operating in the following fields:

Energy

·                                 energy conservation

·                                 renewable energy technologies

·                                 energy efficient goods development and manufacture

·                                 public transport

Pollution Control

·                                 pollution control technology

·                                 waste minimisation

·                                 repair

·                                 recycling

Environment

·                                 water management

·                                 sustainable agriculture

·                                 forestry

·                                 timber use

·                                 countryside management

 Human needs

·                                 housing - new building and refurbishment

·                                 improvements to visual environment

·                                 education and training

·                                 counselling, caring and healing

·                                 community work

·                                 community enterprises such as cultural centres

·                                 leisure and tourism

·                                 innovation, research and development in these fields

EC736. Businesses and public enterprises who believe they might qualify may go to the Tribunals seeking "Green Accreditation”. Any economic grouping may apply: public services including local authorities, National Health Service, social services, co-operatives, charities, and private enterprises. The central criterion for acceptance is that the outcome of their goods and service is to the benefit of society and environment. Preference will be given to small local enterprises. Large national and multinational corporations will be [scrutinised critically in terms of their Corporate Social Welfare standards and taxation contributions, and with a few exceptions will be unlikely to succeed] [excluded from participation].

Successful applicants may take on new workers (i.e. in addition to their present establishment) from Job Centres. New workers taken on under this scheme will be allowed to keep their current unemployment benefit in their new job. This can be seen as a 100% extension of the present limited “Earnings Disregard”.

An appeal process will be provided to check on the decisions of the Tribunals where necessary.

Acceptance of a job offer will be voluntary. Refusal of a job offer will not result in any penalty.

EC737 The employer would bring the remuneration of the GWS worker up to the appropriate normal rate of pay for the job that is paid in the company. This decision should take account of the Minimum Wage and Living Wage. Living Wage for all employees is the preferred minimum level.

The effect of this is to transform the present “Job Seekers’ Allowance” and other forms of unemployment benefit change from being a dead, grudgingly granted “dole” into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) which stimulates the green sector of the local economy. The worker has employment and a better income as a result of taking on work, while the employer has a bigger workforce for a smaller outlay than would normally be the case. There is no significant cost to the Government in the short term. There should preferably be no time limit for this arrangement, so that in this regard it behaves in the same way as a Citizen’s Income (CI), and as years pass, the CI could be introduced gradually as a natural extension of the GWS.

EC738 It will be illegal for employers to replace their previous establishment with GWS workers, and if workers believe that they have been so replaced they can make a complaint to the Tribunals, who would have powers to reinstate the worker or, in the case of repeated offences, to revoke the offending company’s accreditation.

Participation in the scheme will be entirely voluntary on the part of employees and employers. The scheme will stand outside of any existent rules which provide sanctions for claimants who refuse work, and in the event of a claimant refusing work offered by accredited employers, there will not be any withdrawal of benefit. 

The reason for this is that workfare and forced labour is contrary to the ethics of the Green Party. Also, forced labour is inefficient labour.

EC739 In order to avoid unfair competition between established companies and putative start-up companies, it may be decided that companies applying for accreditation must have been in existence for a period of time, for instance, at least two years. In special local circumstances, this rule may be adjusted by the Tribunal. 

EC740 GWS money would otherwise have been given to unemployed people on condition that they do nothing apart from being obliged to prepare themselves for work that for most of them simply does not exist. Therefore, in the short term GWS would present no cost to public sector finances, since the money would have been paid out in any case. Some of the GWS money would come back to Government in the form of increased tax revenues from firms which have benefited, and yet more would come back to society in qualitative improvements such as improved services, diminished inequality and improved morale. Calculations suggest that a GWS scheme operating at 50% of full capacity would benefit the UK economy to the tune of £10 Billion per year, at a cost (for the tribunals) of £34 Million a year. Because the GWS is permanent (as opposed to being time limited, which is the case with similar schemes at present) there would be a long term cost analogous to that of CI.

Proposed by: Richard Lawson

North Somerset GP

Addendum: Cost of the GWS

Green Wage Subsidy - Turning a dead dole into a stimulus for the green economy

One of the weaknesses of free-market capitalism is its tendency to undergo periodic downswings, recessions and depressions, which cause widespread hardship through unemployment and poverty, together with the risks of political instability and war. In a recession, and also in a normally functioning economy, we must ensure that the economy is restarted in a green way. We can create a healthy and beneficial demand in the economy by addressing ecological needs (that is, the needs of environment and society) meaningfully, and at the same time prepare the ground for an introduction of Citizen’s Income by turning unemployment benefits into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) as set out below.



EC735 Every local authority will be required to set up Tribunals empowered to judge, systematically according to set criteria, whether the processes and product of public services or private enterprise who come before them are of net benefit to society and/or environment. 



Applicants would typically be operating in the following fields: 



1. energy conservation

2. renewable energy technologies

3. energy efficient goods manufacture 

4. pollution control technology

5. waste minimisation

6. repair 

7. recycling

8. water management

9. sustainable agriculture

10. forestry and timber use

11. countryside management

12. housing - new building and refurbishment

13. improvements to visual environment

14. public transport

15. education and training

16. counselling, caring and healing

17. community work

18. leisure and tourism

19. innovation, research and development

20. in some high unemployment areas, any ethical business which passes a certain threshold in its environmental audit.


EC736. Businesses and public enterprises who think they might qualify may go to the Tribunals seeking "Green Accreditation”. Any economic grouping may apply: public services including local authorities, co-operatives, and private enterprises. The sole criterion for acceptance is that the outcome of their work is to the benefit of society and environment. If successful, they may take on new workers (i.e. in addition to their present establishment) from Job Centres. New workers taken on under this scheme will be allowed to keep their unemployment benefit in their new job. This can be seen as an extension of the present “Earnings Disregard”. In this way, “Job Seekers’ Allowance” and other forms of unemployment benefit change from being a “dead dole” into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) which stimulates the green sector of the local economy.

An appeal process will be provided.



EC737 The new employees will retain their benefit payments on entering their new work, and the employer will  bring their remuneration up to the normal rate of pay for the job they are now doing.  The result is that the worker has work and a better income as a result of taking on work, and the employer has a bigger workforce for a smaller outlay than would normally be the case, as his payroll is now subsidised by the benefits agency.
There is no time limit for this arrangement, so that in this regard it behaves in the same way as a Citizen’s Income (CI). 


EC738 It will be illegal for employers to replace previous establishment with GWS workers, and if workers believe that they have been so replaced they can make a complaint to the Tribunals, who would have powers to reinstate the worker or, in the case of repeated offences, to revoke the offending company’s accreditation. Participation in the scheme will be entirely voluntary on the part of both employees and employers. The scheme will be outwith of any existent rules which provide sanctions for claimants who refuse work, and in the event of a claimant refusing work offered by accredited employers, there will not be any withdrawal of benefit.



EC739 In order to avoid unfair competition between established companies and putative start-up companies, those companies applying for accreditation must have been in existence for a five years. In special local circumstances, this rule may be adjusted by the tribunal.


EC740 The GWS money would otherwise have been given to unemployed people on condition that they do nothing, which is the present status of Unemployment Benefit, and is the cause of the present notorious unemployment and poverty traps. Therefore, in the short term there would be no cost to public sector finances, since the money would have been paid out in any case, as unemployment benefit. Some of the GWS money would come back to Government in the form of increased tax revenues, and yet more would come back to society in qualitative improvements such as improved services, diminished inequality and improved morals. Because the GWS is permanent (as opposed to being time limited, which is the case with similar benefits at present) there would be a long term cost analogous to that of CI. These costs are consonant with Keynesian doctrine of the state stimulating work in times of economic depression.