« It's not just foreigners who find Britain a foreign land | Home | Is your journey necessary? It could bring disease in its wake »
State obsession with fairness just means more injustice
The way to hell is paved not only with good intentions; it is also bumpily cobbled with good ideas. One of the worst of this world's good ideas is the concept of fairness. Of course, fairness seems good in itself. It is a universal value; even tiny children appear to be born with the idea, and protest ceaselessly against unfairness, as soon as they can lisp. Yet the pursuit of fairness in practice all too often does extraordinary damage, and actually works against what it seeks. Some of the gravest problems faced by social services, state schools, charities, the National Health Service and even the Inland Revenue are directly caused by institutional fairness.
Anyone contemplating the Chancellor's recent Budget must have been struck, yet again, by the astonishing complexity of the tax and benefit system. First one group is "rewarded" or privileged, so another is disadvantaged, so a further allowance is made, and so on ad infinitum. Now, says the taxman, we're going to give you a tiny new tax break here, and a slightly bigger new benefit entitlement there, and a special allowance for a quite different reason, which is nullified by a drop in a different allowance, and the net result might be that you are marginally better off, but then you will be taxable on the benefits that we have given you. Oh, and we need to raise more tax to "target" all those people, who, like you, are not claiming what they could, because they are completely confused.
All this absurd complexity - so wasteful in time, money and administration - is caused solely by the obsessive pursuit of fairness. Tinkering breeds tinkering. The taxpayer is poorer, but fairness is no nearer. If anything, it is still further off, like a will-o'-the-wisp. Everyone would do better if the Chancellor abandoned the pursuit of fairness, and went after efficiency instead. Efficiency would mean scrapping all the allowances and the exceptions and the administration. It would mean big tax cuts. That would not necessarily mean less revenue: with much lower administration costs, much more money could be raised and then sent directly to where it is needed.
All this is obvious, but it will never happen, not even, I am afraid, under the Conservatives, because of the public obsession with fairness. I notice that fairness is not called that these days; rather confusingly, people now often say "equity", meaning equality; what is fair is now not only what is just but also what is demonstrably equal. So, like the tax system, all public and voluntary services in this country are weighed down with infinitely complex rules and requirements, all in the name of fairness. It is hugely counter-productive and, ironically enough, unfair.
Take, for example, a small community project in a poor inner-city area. I'm thinking of an inspiring and well-known scheme in Poplar, in the East End of London. It is quite possible for local people to get together and find their own ways of making life better. Everyone seems to agree that this is a good idea, not least the Prime Minister, with his talk of communitarianism and local empowerment. In practice, however, the dead hand of "equity" is hanging over any such project, and will probably stifle it before it starts.
Try employing someone - the local person everyone knows, who himself had the idea of the drop-in centre, or whatever; you will immediately find you are in breach of equal opportunities legislation. You did not advertise the job, or not widely enough, and you did not consider applicants of another race or sex. Which is more important? Getting the right, and indeed the only, suitable local person, who is already part of the project, or abiding by abstract and irrelevant ideas of fairness?
Take the provision of care for mentally handicapped adults. I possess a handbook for the training of carers for such people. What are the crucial issues with which this "learning package" starts? The very first exercise considers what a worker should do if two of his mentally handicapped clients describe the homosexual kissing they've just seen on television as disgusting and dirty. The next chapter considers oppression, in particular racism, sexism and ageism. Words almost fail me. Fairness to all, not least to homosexuals, is indeed important. But the lack of perspective here is astonishing. It is due to the same old well-meaning obsession with fairness, but this obsession with one kind of fairness can be unfair to the clients themselves - it is putting other issues ahead of their pressing individual needs.
The same is true of the thinking behind the disastrous care-in-the-community policies for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped - known to have failed horribly, but still being pursued by professionals, regardless both of failure and of higher costs. The same is true of the ludicrous principle of "inclusion" in schools; it is obvious that those with genuine special educational needs must have special education in special groups, but in the name of fairness, children with very grave problems must be included in normal classes, where their needs go largely unmet. That is fair neither to them nor to the other children, but in the name of fairness, every child must lose. Life, sadly, is inescapably unfair; the pursuit of fairness is doomed not only to failure, but to further unfairness.
The Daily Telegraph | Saturday, March 17, 2001
