Welfare based on need should be scrapped - Frank Field (From Wirral Globe)
Send us news by text, start your message Globe News and your send photos and videos to 80360
Welfare based on need should be scrapped - Frank Field
3:09pm Tuesday 16th October 2012 in News By Leigh Marles
Welfare based on need should be scrapped - Frank Field
A FUTURE Labour government should scrap the idea of a welfare system based on need and move instead to one which rewards those who have contributed to it.
The controversial call comes from Birkenhead MP Frank Field, who says Labour should commit itself to a new “welfare reform contract” with national insurance as its cornerstone.
Last week the Conservative chancellor, George Osborne, committed the government to reducing the cost of welfare by a further £10bn as it pursues more “austerity” measures designed to reduce the UK’s debt.
But Mr Field believes the current system is broken-backed, cannot be fixed and governments should not waste political capital in trying to prove otherwise.
He said: “Since 1948 there has been 15-fold increase in real terms in welfare spending. The welfare bills escalate, the number of claimants increase, but independence is not encouraged.
“As we now have a welfare state based on meeting need, this encourages individuals, not unreasonably, to try to ensure they qualify under this guise.
"It therefore pays to lie about ones earnings, to cheat, or to be inactive. The worst side of human nature is encouraged, the best is penalised.
He continued: “The next Labour government must commit itself to turning a welfare state which now largely meets needs to one where help is based primarily on contributions.
“No one should be under any illusion as to what a fundamental change this is. There could be no more fundamental commitment to welfare reform than making this declaration and acting on it.”
Mr Field stressed there are no easy fixes in carrying through a reform of this magnitude.
But he said he believes it's crucial for Labour to declare its intent to make fundamental changes, sketch out immediate policies to begin that process and register the idea with voters that even more radical reforms will be required.
“In moving away from our current welfare state it is crucial to make a new contract with taxpayers so they know that, over time, their contributions will be better rewarded than those who qualify only on the basis of need," said Mr Field.
“This cannot be achieved immediately, but this should be one of the Labour Party’s longer-term aims.”
In May of this year, Mr Field produced a report for Prime Minister David Cameron on how to break the cycle of state dependence and poverty.
But he claimed Number 10 has ignored his findings and doubted whether Mr Cameron had even read it.
Comments(19)
Jimrob
says...
10:38pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Now that sounds like the perfect description of EVERY Banker and Financier in the Country Frank. Now here's a really radical thought......
.....How's about chasing the people that have brought this country to it's knees instead of doing the Tories work for them and attacking the very people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a bankrupt country, caused mainly by the policies and stupidity of your own party?
(Sorry to all readers for the double posting but FrankieBoy has made my blood boil recently)
David Scott
says...
10:40pm Tue 16 Oct 12
That apart, the practicality of what Frank seems to be saying is less than clear, and does Frank really expect a Labour government to want to implement such ideas?
p.s. Why is Frank's website coloured green, and why no mention of being a Labour MP?!
johnbrace
says...
4:40am Wed 17 Oct 12
I would guess (although this is just my opinion) that green is the colour of the House of Commons where he is an MP (the colour of the seats should be a big clue).
"Why no mention of being a Labour MP?"
The website is paid for by the taxpayer at a cost of £1,570 in year 2011/2012. This amount covers photos for the website (£370) and hosting (£1200). Therefore there are restrictions on such party political activity on it due to the taxpayer funding.
David Scott
says...
9:58am Wed 17 Oct 12
Wirral_Man
says...
10:25am Wed 17 Oct 12
The increasign 15 fold is an even more scary figure than Nick Clegg's quote recently that since the war the economy has grown 3 fold but government spending has grown 7 fold...........
We've all got to accept that the Gov can't pay for everything or accept higher taxes!
David Scott
says...
10:56am Wed 17 Oct 12
As to his ideas, if he explained them clearly I might agree with some of them. For instance, it would be a good idea if the basic pension were raised substantially, and pension credit ended. But is that what Frank is saying? He is opaque when it comes to the detail.
The_voice
says...
11:38am Wed 17 Oct 12
An ill thought out plan by an MP whose report was ignored by the all parties.
council officer
says...
12:34pm Wed 17 Oct 12
charlie stevenson
says...
2:34pm Wed 17 Oct 12
appeasing those that shout loudest.
Charlie Stevenson.
charlie stevenson
says...
10:25pm Wed 17 Oct 12
David Scott
says...
9:06am Thu 18 Oct 12
Why benefits system makes people cheat
Labour MP slams 'broken-backed' reforms
By FRANK FIELD, Former Welfare Minister
IS Britain’s benefits system fit for purpose?
Former Minister for Welfare Reform Frank Field doesn’t think so.
Here, in an exclusive article for The Sun, he tells readers what has gone wrong and what can be done about it.
OUR current system of welfare is broken-backed.
It cannot be fixed and governments should not waste too much precious political capital trying to prove otherwise.
Since 1948 there has been a 15-fold increase in real terms in welfare spending.
Each new government attempts a new reform.
Today, you can read about how three teenagers have kept off benefits by starting their own businesses but here I want to talk about what we can do to reform the benefits system itself. Despite our current welfare system dating back 70 years, those who introduced it would hardly recognise it today.
In 1942 William Beveridge published his report on reform to the welfare state. He advocated a new model of welfare provision based on a contributory-based system of national insurance.
His scheme, which was introduced by the great reforming government of Clement Attlee, introduced benefits which were payable based on individuals’ contributions.
In other words, people were expected to contribute to the system according to how much they earned.
Beveridge saw individual responsibility as paramount to his system.
His values were hard work, honesty and prudence.
His proposed national insurance system was designed, therefore, to reward people who played by the rules and contributed to society.
It promoted, in simple terms, good behaviour.
In the intervening 70 years successive governments have steadily eroded this central plank of Beveridge’s welfare state.
Means testing is slowly killing the insurance principle. Through means testing, welfare in this country is now provided primarily on the basis of need rather than contribution.
Gordon Brown’s means-tested tax credits and their logical successor, Iain Duncan Smith’s means-tested universal credit, institutionalise this change.
Means-tested benefits can promote the worst side of human nature.
It encourages dishonesty and penalises those who save.
It therefore pays to lie about one’s earnings, to cheat or to be inactive.
Means testing benefits makes moving into work less attractive.
The problem is that sometimes 96p is deducted from every extra pound earned.
These marginal deduction rates make it economically rational not to move into work.
The Government claim the universal credit will overcome this problem. It won’t. By leaving council tax benefit out of the universal credit, marginal deduction rates will remain as high as they ever were.
The pension credit also encourages many people to make the rational decision not to save for retirement.
What is the point when income from savings will reduce pension credit entitlement?
At its worst, means testing encourages people not to declare income, to protect their benefit income.
I believe that voters are where Beveridge was.
They support the national insurance system.
And here is the opportunity for Labour.
The Coalition has nailed its colours to the universal credit mast.
I believe Labour should begin to construct a manifesto proposal which seeks to rebuild an insurance-based welfare system.
It is the only sustainable solution and will put the party firmly in line with public opinion.
With three years left before the next General Election in 2015, will Ed Miliband seize his chance?
Spiffy
says...
9:38am Thu 18 Oct 12
benefit-fraud
...
He appears to wish for a return to Pre-1997 when you could either claim Supplementary Benefit or Unemployment Benefit. The latter was paid at the higher rate and eligibility conditional on having paid full NI for the preceding two years...although if you had a break between jobs of six months or less then you could still qualify.
...
As it was based on two years worth of NI contributions then you could only claim it for two years and then you either had to get a job or sign off and claim Supplementary Benefit.
...
There was no such thing as "benefits for life" with few conditions (if any) until Frank and his Labour Party slowly but surely morphed the welfare system into the monstrosity it is today.
...
Thanks also to Frank's party we now have the EU attempting to force the UK government to grant full and immediate entitlement to all benefits to all EU migrants.
...
Frank, you were an integral part of the party that completely ruined this country for generations to come. I'd wish you luck in squishing the genie back into the bottle but we all know you haven't got a hope in hell of doing it.
...
Even if anyone DID listen to you.
David Scott
says...
11:19am Thu 18 Oct 12
...
bickyboy
says...
7:08pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Paves the way for a two-tier welfare system, does this; where those who have managed to find a job and contribute to NI are rewarded with higher benefit payments if they become unemployed, and those who(possibly through no fault of their own) have not found work and thus paid nothing end up living at the local foodbank.
I think you need to clarify, Frank; because right now this sounds less like the solution to poverty, and more like the Final Solution to poverty.
dave301bounty
says...
8:22pm Sat 20 Oct 12
David Scott
says...
11:52pm Sat 20 Oct 12
I notice the article below on his website. Can't say it's clear to me what his point is, other than what we (nearly) all want, cheaper fuel. Is he in favour of 'social tariffs' - if so, isn't that means testing?
His article:
"Social tariffs and fuel poverty
Winter is fast approaching and fuel bills are already high. Around 4 million households in the UK currently suffer from fuel poverty.
During winter 2010-11 over 25,000 more people died in the UK compared with non-winter periods. Many of these deaths can be directly attributed to fuel poverty.
In recent years, energy companies have responded by advertising social tariffs. I thought that the social tariff offer, which is meant to be for the most hard pressed consumers, would be the cheapest tariff provided by each company.
Not so. Energy suppliers continued to offer cheaper tariffs about which they have no duty to tell anyone, let alone the poorest consumers.
Last year, the Government introduced the Warm Home Discount (WHD) Scheme, which is now replacing social tariffs. Qualifying households, predominantly older people in receipt of the Guarantee Credit element of Pension Credit, but not the Savings Credit element, now receive a rebate of £120 off electricity bills.
But the core problem persists. There is simply no obligation for energy companies to switch vulnerable customers or even inform them of their cheapest tariff. So whilst some now get a rebate, they still might be paying much more than they need to.
I will soon be campaigning on this issue. Here is where you can help. Do you have examples of people on a social tariff or WHD Scheme who could have obtained a better deal from their supplier, or by changing supplier?
If you can help please do get in touch."
spamfiend
says...
6:25pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Marjestic
says...
1:37am Sat 27 Oct 12
There are those who think that it's a mugs game to go out to work and they would rather watch others getting up in the morning and struggle to get to work while they watch daytime television or spend their time in the pubs and betting offices. It is a very unfair system and I think it needs radical change.
I think it should be mentioned that it was Tony Blair asked Frank to compile a report on the benefits system and 'to think the unthinkable' and when he did Tony was worried that he might upset his loyal benefit claimants so he swiftly moved Frank to the back benches. DC has asked for the same from Frank but it appears that Frank's findings have fallen on deaf ears.
Jimrob says...
10:30pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Come to that. What happens if, as is quite often the case here in the REAL world of Merseyside, not the Ivory Towers of Whitehall and the South East, a young person is unable to find work for a couple of years. Should they be allowed to starve to death or live on the streets?
YOU REALLY ARE IN THE WRONG PARTY aren't you FrankieBoy?