When
Sir William
Beveridge set out his plans for the modern welfare state in 1942, he
said that he wished to banish want by providing assistance from
cradle to grave, a welfare system to which all would pay and from which all would
benefit. We don't have that now; many don't pay and many don't
benefit. He
set out his vision of every citizen willing to serve according to his
powers, having at all times an income sufficient to meet his
responsibilities. Now, whether a citizen is willing to serve or not,
that income is available and is often more than the minimum UK
working wage. What was once a fall-back position, a safety net for
those citizen's who fell on hard times, is now a foundation stone of
modern society, the starting point for many to calculate their income
needs, the desirable object of many out of work migrants, the bedrock of many people's lifestyle.
Even
without the European Union, which makes it possible for the peoples
of at least 29 countries (members plus accession countries plus,
through a quirk, some others able to obtain EU passports), that's
well over half a billion people, to receive a whole range of benefits
in the UK without actually paying a penny towards them, or even
contributing towards the UK economy, Beveridge's plan has been
perverted, his vision lost.
It
was three years ago that George Osborne stirred up controversy by
suggesting that there were those who had made living on benefits a
lifestyle choice. One or two recent cases have reopened that debate,
notably those of Heather Frost and Tracey MacDonald. The former is a
37-year old single mother of 11 children (with several different
fathers), for whom the Council is building a 6-bedroom house because
it doesn't have one a large enough to house them all. The latter,
also single and I think about the same age with a daughter, lives on the Eastlands Housing
Association complex which recently asked residents to cut down on
luxuries in these hard times; whereupon Tracey went on television to
argue that it was her right to spend her money however she wished and
that it was indeed her lifestyle choice to live on benefits and to
spend them on 'luxuries'.
I do actually sympathise with Tracey - everyone should spend their income as they wish; the Housing Association request was a mistake. But it is the thought that the various benefits she receives are considered her income that is so depressing. She made clear that she had no intention of working. That does seem to me a travesty of the Beveridge vision. Heather, well, I don't know, she is so beleigerent about her rights to be looked after that I don't know where to start. All
sorts of derogatory terms have been bandied about, because of such cases - the feckless
underclass, problem families, etc, but plans to restructure the
welfare system have also led to more publicity for the political
problems faced by the present Government over benefits. I suspect that more such cases will be unearthed before the new measures are welcomed in.
Never the less,
apart from the two ladies mentioned above, there does seem to be a
significant part of the British population for whom benefits are now
seen as a initial basic right, rather than a final dire necessity. And it's not just those without visible means of support.
A
recent caller to a radio programme, on which Nick Clegg was answering
questions, berated the Deputy Prime Minister for a new policy under
which an allowance would be paid to working mothers to help with the
cost of childcare. She claimed it was discriminating against
mothers who elected to give up their careers to look after children
themselves. 'There is absolutely no provision within the tax system
to help families like myself, and our family is no doubt a net
contributor to the Exchequer.'
It's
an interesting thought, isn't it. Britain is a net contributor to
the EU, but can there be net contributors to the Exchequer? I suppose Beveridge had people like her family in mind when he said 'every citizen willing to serve according to his
powers, having at all times an income sufficient to meet his
responsibilities'. And, she continued, there is no
provision within the tax system to help 'families like myself '?
Do we think that there should be a welfare system, or a tax system
for that matter, which helps everyone, however well off? And
wouldn't that mean that those that really need it would have to
receive a little more? And yet this a lady in what we might normally
consider to be very well-off circumstances – a very well-paid
husband, nice house in nice area, in fact professionally qualified
and able to return to her career in due course, feels
that the Welfare State should support her too.
She
did acknowledge that the various free education provisions we now
enjoy were actually assistance to all families, but she took
exception to the language about helping 'hard-working families',
which she described as offensive to stay at home mothers who were
also hard-working and that it sent out a message that staying
at home to raise your children was 'the lazy option'. I can
sympathise with her affront. But she's wrong about the substance. Staying at home is
a lifestyle choice, but it doesn't make sense to pay stay at home
mothers an allowance designed to help those who are not at home to
look after their children themselves. It doesn't, as she suggested,
make staying at home seem like a lazy option; it simply recognises
the difficulty those having to work out of the home will have in
looking after their children during the day. Many mothers make the
opposite choice to this lady, because they can't afford not to work.
They are the ones Beveridge intended to help. The allowance is also
of course designed to make it possible for mothers to go out to work
if they wish to do so . . .
There
was another example at about the same time. A Mrs Stephanie
Demouh and her children had lived for around three years in a
£2million four-bedroom house in Belgravia, one of the most exclusive areas of London, provided almost
entirely by housing benefit (of several thousand pounds a week). New rules, limiting benefits to £400
a week, designed to stop taxpayers’ money being spent on houses in
the most expensive areas, meant that she had to be moved somewhere
cheaper. But she has now appealed to the Council to find and fund
another home in Belgravia, so that her children can continue to
attend their primary school and she can continue her courses at
Westminster University. She is married incidentally to a businessman
and has a 50 per cent share in his fashion business, but she does not
live with him.
I don't know, nor
understand, all the details of this extraordinary case, but again, we
have a person, a student at that with a well-paid husband (who
presumably lives somewhere) who seems to believe that state-funded
accommodation is some sort of right and that she should be able to
choose which house she lives in. I haven't heard how this case has
played out, and obviously I hope that the lady's appeal is ignored,
but it is the fact that someone thinks that it is OK to be provided
with a house, while they are studying, and despite her apparent income, that suggests that the view of benefits has gone awry. Perhaps the fact that
the case wasn't just thrown out publicly means that someone else
thinks such a situation is normal too. As I say, I know nothing of the
background here, but the apparent shift in the principle of welfare is an
interesting development.
So, Beveridge's plan (I
hope) is being fulfilled. There are those for whom benefits provide a welcome safety net. But the envy shown by those needing the welfare system has now been replaced with envy from those not
receiving its benefits. Somehow we are now beginning to believe that we should all receive something from the State. Come to think of it, maybe I should get
child benefit too. I don't have children at home, but that's no
reason why I should be discriminated against, is it.
No comments:
Post a Comment