Frank Field MP
Your MP for Birkenhead
don't read the menu options and go directly to the page content 

The Values of Welfare


30 November 2012
1 December marks the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report. The aim of the  report was to change welfare as voters had known it. Seven decades on it hasn’t  quite turned out like that.

Both William Beveridge, and, more importantly, Clement Attlee, were clear  that welfare should be both based on and be driven by values. There were two  aspects of welfare reform that particularly concerned Attlee. The first was that  welfare’s values should reflect the wider working-class moral economy. Here there was a widespread belief that work should pay, that savings should not be  penalised and that there should be no penalty put on honesty.

Attlee believed these values would be promoted by the insurance-based welfare  that Beveridge proposed. Benefits would be earned by contributions, either  through work or the wider caring functions that members of the family might  undertake.

Attlee saw a contributory-based welfare as one that clearly gave entitlement  on the basis of the functions individuals carried out and that those individual  functions were linked to Attlee’s ideas about good citizenship.

Why didn’t the New Jerusalem planned by Attlee come about? There are two  reasons normally put forward. The first is that insurance benefits were not paid  at a high enough level to lift claimants free of means-testing. Likewise,  Beveridge did not foresee the changing position of women.

Both of these reasons have some validity but they in no way explain why we  have ended up today with a welfare state that is primarily means-tested ie  benefits are awarded on the proof of need and not on the basis of being earned  by contribution or one’s function as a citizen, for example, being a carer. 

It is true that Beveridge did not foresee the changing position of women. But these changes could have easily been accommodated had the political imagination  and political will been forthcoming. 

Much more serious was the failure of governments that succeeded Attlee to  abide by the three fundamental assumptions on which Beveridge built his contributory-based welfare. The first was the need for full employment. The  welfare budget would not have been enough unless there was full employment. Similarly, the NHS was tasked with actively preventing ill health, and thereby  dependence on benefit. Likewise the payment to families for children had to be  generous enough so that the income one gained in work, where one kept the child  payments in full, ensured that there were very clear work incentives.

The 70th anniversary presents Labour with the opportunity to begin building up a welfare reform programme so that, again, welfare as voters have known it is  abolished and replaced over time by a contributory-based system. Welfare is the  biggest of all the government budgets and therefore needs to be reordered.  Similarly, the universal credit is on target to implode once it begins to  deliver the single benefit to large numbers of claimants.

Setting out an alternative is therefore urgent on both counts. We need a  clear policy for going into the election. We similarly need an alternative to the morally destructive universal credit.

www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/11/30/the-values-of-welfare


back

Bookmark with:

website by Hudson Berkley Reinhart Ltd