Welfare state in the United Kingdom
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
The welfare state of the United Kingdom comprises expenditures by the government of the United Kingdom intended to improve health, education, employment and social security. The British system has been classified as a liberal welfare state system.[1][2]
Contents
History
The United Kingdom is a unitary state, with limited devolution. Because of this, the structure of various services (including welfare) in different countries of the UK changes in certain respects; for example, the laws which apply in Scotland may not be equally applicable to Northern Ireland or England and Wales. This also carries implications concerning governmental welfare programs.[3]
The United Kingdom, as a welfare state in the modern sense, was anticipated by the Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 which found that the old poor law (a part of the English Poor laws) was subject to widespread abuse and promoted squalor, idleness and criminality in its recipients, compared to those who received private charity. Accordingly, the qualifications for receiving aid were tightened up, forcing many recipients to either turn to private charity or accept employment.
Opinions began to be changed late in the century by the reports drawn up by men such as Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth into the levels of poverty in Britain. These reports indicated that in the massive industrial cities, between one-quarter and one-third of the population were living below the poverty line.
Liberal reforms
After the United Kingdom general election, 1906, the Labour Party became a serious competitor to the Liberal Party.[citation needed] The resulting Liberal welfare reforms laid the foundations of the modern welfare state.[4] The reforms were greatly extended over the next forty years.[4] Certainly, governments which had seen the wave of communist revolts after the First World War were keen to ensure that deeper reforms reduced the risk of mass social unrest. In addition, modern, complex industry had more need for a healthy and educated workforce than older industries had.[citation needed] Crucially, the experience of almost total state control during the Second World War had inured the population to the idea that the state might be able to solve problems in wide areas of national life.[5] Finally, it seems likely that the social mixing involved in mass evacuation of children, and of service in the armed forces, had increased support for welfare among the middle classes.[citation needed] The Liberal government of 1906-1914 implemented welfare policies concerning three main groups in society: the old, the young and working people.[4]
<templatestyles src="Div col/styles.css"/>
- The young
- In 1906 local authorities were allowed to provide free school meals.[6]
- The 1908 Children and Young Persons Act introduced a set of regulations that became known as the Children's Charter. This imposed severe punishments for neglecting or treating children cruelly. It was made illegal to sell cigarettes to children or send them out begging. Separate juvenile courts were set up, which sent children convicted of a crime to borstals (a forerunner to modern youth detention centres), instead of prison.[7]
- The old
- In 1908 pensions were introduced for the over 70s.[8]
- Working people
Beveridge Report and Labour
The aftermath of the First World War boosted demands for social reform, and led to a permanent increase in the role of the state in British society. The end of the war also brought a slump, particularly in northern industrial towns, that deepened into the Great Depression by the 1930s.[5]
During the war, the government became much more involved in people's lives via governmental organisation of the rationing of foodstuffs, clothing and fuel and extra milk and meals being given to expectant mothers and children.[5] The wartime coalition government also committed itself to full employment through Keynesian policies, free universal secondary education, and the introduction of family allowances.[3] Many people welcomed this government intervention and wanted it to go further.[5]
The Beveridge Report of 1942, (which identified five "Giant Evils" in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease) essentially recommended a national, compulsory, flat rate insurance scheme which would combine health care, unemployment and retirement benefits. Beveridge himself was careful to emphasize that unemployment benefits should be held to a subsistence level, and after six months would be conditional on work or training, so as not to encourage abuse of the system.[11] That was however predicated on the concept of the "maintenance of employment" which meant ‘it should be possible to make unemployment of any individual for more than 26 weeks continuously a rare thing in normal times’ [11] and recognised that the imposition of a training condition would be impractical if the unemployed were numbered by the million.[11] After its victory in the United Kingdom general election, 1945 the Labour Party pledged to eradicate the Giant Evils, and undertook policy measures to provide for the people of the United Kingdom "from the cradle to the grave."
Included among the laws passed were the National Assistance Act 1948, National Insurance Act 1946, and National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946.
Impact
This policy resulted in increased expenditure and a widening of what was considered to be the state's responsibility. In addition to the central services of education, health, unemployment and sickness allowances, the welfare state also included the idea of increasing redistributive taxation, increasing regulation of industry, food, and housing (better safety regulations, weights and measures controls, etc.)
The foundation of the National Health Service (NHS) did not involve building new hospitals but nationalisation of existing municipal provision and charitable foundations. The aim was not to substantially increase provision but to standardise care across the country; indeed Beveridge believed that the overall cost of medical care would decrease, as people became healthier and so needed less treatment.
However, instead of falling, the cost of the NHS has risen by 4% annually on average due to an ageing population,[12] leading to a reduction in provision. Charges for dentures, and spectacles were introduced in 1951 by the Labour government that had founded the NHS three years earlier and prescription charges by the Conservative Government in 1952.[13] In 1988, free eye tests for all were stopped, although they are now free for the over-60s.[14]
Policies differ in different countries of the United Kingdom, but the provision of a welfare state is still a basic principle of government policy in the United Kingdom today. The principle of health care "free at the point of use" became a central idea of the welfare state, which later Conservative governments, although critical of some aspects of the Welfare State, did not reverse.
Expenditure
In the financial year 2014/15, state pensions were overwhelmingly the largest governmental welfare expense, costing £86.5 billion, followed by housing benefit, which accounted for over £20 billion.[15] Expenditure in 2011-12 on benefits included £5.1 billion paid to unemployed people and £41 billion to people on low incomes:[16][17]
UK Government welfare expenditure 2011–12 (percent)
| Benefit | Expenditure (£bn) |
|---|---|
| State pension | 86.5 |
| Tax credits (Working tax credits and Child tax credits) | 29.7 |
| Housing Benefit | 23.5 |
| Disability Living Allowance | 15.4 |
| Incapacity benefits | 14.1 |
| Child benefit | 11.6 |
| Pension Credit | 6.6 |
| Attendance Allowance | 5.4 |
| Jobseeker's allowance | 3.1 |
| Income Support | 2.6 |
| Maternity and paternity pay | 2.4 |
| Carer's allowance | 2.3 |
| Winter fuel payments | 2.1 |
| War pensions | 0.8 |
| Universal credit | 0.1 |
| Other | 5.9 |
| TOTAL | 213.9 |
Criticisms
Critics of the welfare state claim that, in addition to the vast expense, by relieving citizens of personal responsibility for their own welfare the government has inadvertently promoted irresponsible and immature attitudes, with the result that squalor, ignorance, and idleness are common.[18][19] In 1980, T. E. Utley, wrote that the welfare state was "an arrangement under which we all largely cease to be responsible for our own behaviour and in return become responsible for everyone else's. The temptations which this way of doing things offers to synthetic anger, fraudulent penitence, all other forms of hypocrisy and the sheer evasion of duty are infinitely too strong for fallen man".[20]
In the early 21st century, the Government of David Cameron has argued for a reduction of welfare spending in the United Kingdom as part of their programme of austerity.[21] Government ministers have argued that a growing culture of welfare dependency is perpetuating welfare spending, and claim that a cultural change is required to reduce the welfare bill.[22] Public opinion in the UK appears to support a reduction in welfare spending, however commentators have suggested that negative public perceptions are founded on exaggerated assumptions about the proportion of spending on unemployment benefit and the level of benefit fraud.[23][24]
Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that benefit fraud is thought to have cost taxpayers £1.2 billion during 2012-13, up 9 per cent on the year before.[25] This is lower than the £1.5bn of benefit underpayment due to error.[26]
There are also widespread complaints from church groups and others that the UK welfare state does insufficient work to prevent poverty, deprivation even hunger.[27] Close to half of those needing to use food banks have had issues with their benefits. Delay in paying housing benefit[28] disability benefit[29] and other benefits [30] can force people to use foodbanks. Terminally ill patients who may not know their condition is terminal have been asked when they expect to die.[31]
Historical statistics on welfare trends
Benefit rates as a per cent of industrial earnings of male manual workers aged 21 and over (1948-1971):[32]
| Year (month) | Percentage |
|---|---|
| 1948 (October) | 18.9 |
| 1961 (April) | 19.1 |
| 1962 (April) | 18.4 |
| 1963 (May) | 20.8 |
| 1964 (April) | 19.2 |
| 1964 (October) | 18.7 |
| 1965 (April) | 21.2 |
| 1965 (October) | 20.4 |
| 1966 (April) | 19.8 |
| 1966 (October) | 19.7 |
| 1967 (April) | 19.4 |
| 1967 (October) | 21.0 |
| 1968 (April) | 20.2 |
| 1968 (October) | 19.6 |
| 1969 (April) | 18.8 |
| 1969 (November) | 20.0 |
| 1970 (April) | 19.0 |
| 1970 (November) | 17.6 |
| 1971 (March) [est.] | 17.3 |
| Year (month) | Percentage |
|---|---|
| 1948 (October) | 17.5 |
| 1961 (April) | 17.8 |
| 1962 (April) | 17.1 |
| 1963 (May) | 19.5 |
| 1964 (April) | 18.1 |
| 1964 (October) | 17.6 |
| 1965 (April) | 20.1 |
| 1965 (October) | 19.4 |
| 1966 (April) | 18.8 |
| 1966 (October) | 20.0 |
| 1967 (April) | 19.7 |
| 1967 (October) | 20.1 |
| 1968 (April) | 19.3 |
| 1968 (October) | 19.8 |
| 1969 (April) | 19.3 |
| 1969 (November) | 19.2 |
| 1970 (April) | 18.3 |
| 1970 (November) | 18.3 |
| 1971 (March) [est.] | 18.0 |
| Year (month) | Percentage |
|---|---|
| 1948 October: | 10.9 |
| 1961 April: | 9.3 |
| 1962 April: | 8.9 |
| 1963 May: | 8.6 |
| 1964 April: | 8.0 |
| 1964 October: | 7.7 |
| 1965 April: | 7.4 |
| 1965 October: | 7.1 |
| 1966 April: | 6.9 |
| 1966 October: | 6.9 |
| 1967 April: | 6.8 |
| 1967 October: | 7.7 |
| 1968 April: | 11.9 |
| 1968 October: | 12.6 |
| 1969 April: | 12.1 |
| 1969 November: | 11.7 |
| 1970 April: | 11.3 |
| 1970 November: | 10.2 |
| 1971 March (est): | 10.0 |
Note on source, as quoted in the text: "based on statistics of weekly earnings, Employment and productivity gazette."
Changes in National Assistance/Supplementary Benefit scale (1963-1969) (a):[32]
Real value single pensioner
May 1963: 100
March 1965: 111
November 1966: 117
October 1967: 122
November 1969: 122
Real value married man with 3 children (b)
May 1963: 100
March 1965: 112
November 1966: 110
October 1967: 115
November 1969: 115
Real take home pay for average worker
May 1963: 100
March 1965: 106
November 1966: 106
October 1967: 108
November 1969: 110
Notes
(a) As quoted in the text: "the scale is calculated using the average discretionary addition (adjusted to spread winter fuel costs throughout the year) for retirement pensioners. It does not include any allowance for rent. The price index used for the single pensioner is that in the Employment and Productivity Gazette." (b) As quoted in the text: "it is assumed that the children are aged four, six, and eleven."
Increases in national insurance benefits (1963–69):[32]
Real take home pay for average worker (a)
March/May 1963: 100
January/March 1965: 106
October 1967: 108
November 1969: 110
Real value of single pension (b)
March/May 1963: 100
January/March 1965: 111
October 1967: 114
November 1969: 114
Real value of unemployment benefit (man with wife and 3 children) (c)
March/May 1963: 100
January/March 1965: 110
October 1967: 113
November 1969: 116
Notes:
(a) As quoted by text: "Based on average earnings for adult male manual workers in manufacturing, allowing for income tax and national insurance contributions.
(b) As quoted by text: "Calculated on the special price index for single pensioner households published by the Employment and Productivity Gazette adjusted for housing expenditure using the housing component of the retail price index. Since a disproportionate number of pensioners have controlled tenancies, this may overstate the increase in prices."
(c) As quoted by text: "This column is deflated by use of the retail price index."
Social security benefits as a percentage of average earnings for last increases of various governments, 1951-79[33]
Year
Labour (1951)
Sickness/unemployment benefit a: 25.7
a plus earnings related supplement: 25.7
Retirement pensions c: 30.4
Supplementary allowance/benefits d: 30.4
Family allowance/child benefit e: 8.0
Tory (1963)
Sickness/unemployment benefit a: 33.8
a plus earnings related supplement: 33.8
Retirement pensions: 33.0
Supplementary allowance/benefits d: 31.6
Family allowance/child benefit e: 5.3
Labour (1969)
Sickness/unemployment benefit a: 32.4
a plus earnings related supplement: 52.3
Retirement pensions: 32.4
Supplementary allowance/benefits d: 31.4
Family allowance/child benefit e: 3.8
Tory (1973)
Sickness/unemployment benefit a: 29.1
a plus earnings related supplement: 46.2
Retirement pensions: 30.5
Supplementary allowance/benefits d: 28.5
Family allowance/child benefit e: 3.0
Labour (1978) Sickness/unemployment benefit a: 30.5 a plus earnings related supplement: 44.4
Retirement pensions: 37.4
Supplementary allowance/benefits d: 30.2
Family allowance/child benefit e: 3.7
a,b Man plus dependent wife. c Man plus dependent wife on his insurance. d Married couple. e For 1 child.
Social policy benefits and earnings under Labour 1963-69:[34]
Unemployment, sickness, and retirement benefits (single)
1963: 100
1969: 148
Retirement pension (married)
1963: 100
1969: 149
National assistance/supplementary benefit (married couple)
1963: 100
1969: 150
Adult male manual workers (weekly earnings)
1963: 100
1969: 154
Adult male administrative, technical, and clerical employees (weekly earnings)
1963: 100
1969: 148
Supplementary benefit rates as a proportion of gross and net income at average earnings, married couple:[35]
End of year (a)
As % of gross average earnings
1973
Ordinary rate: 28.5 Long term rate: 31.4
1974
Ordinary rate: 28.1 Long term rate: 33.6
1975
Ordinary rate: 29.8 Long term rate: 36.2
1976
Ordinary rate: 30.8 Long term rate: 37.1
1977
Ordinary rate: 32.3 Long term rate: 38.9
1978
Ordinary rate: 30.6 Long term rate: 37.8
As % of net income (b) at average earnings
1973
Ordinary rate: 37.9 Long term rate: 41.8
1974
Ordinary rate: 38.8 Long term rate: 46.5
1975
Ordinary rate: 42.4 Long term rate: 51.5
1976
Ordinary rate: 43.9 Long term rate: 52.9
1977
Ordinary rate: 44.1 Long term rate: 53.1
1978
Ordinary rate: 41.6 Long term rate: 51.4
Supplementary benefit: long term scale rate as proportion of ordinary rate (%)
Date of introduction
1973
Single: 14.0 Married couple: 10.3
1974
Single: 23.8 Married couple: 19.8
1975 (April)
Single: 25.0 Married couple: 20.4
1975 (November)
Single: 25.7 Married couple: 21.4
1976
Single: 23.6 Married couple: 20.3
1977
Single: 23.4 Married couple: 20.4
1978
Single: 28.0 Married couple: 23.5
Numbers in households dependent on supplementary benefit or with estimated incomes below SB level, 1974 and 1976 (thousands)
Pensioners (as % of total)
1974: 2,680 (52) 1976: 2,800 (44)
Under pensionable age family head or single parent
Unemployed
1974: 450 1976: 1,080
Normally in full-time work
1974: 360 1976: 890
Sick or disabled
1974: 480 1976: 280
Others
1974: 1,170 1976: 1,300
Changes in real terms in social security benefits, 1964-79 (in 1981 prices, 1951= 100):[33]
Supplementary benefits (a)
1964 146
1965 166
1966 165
1967 173
1968 173
1969 172
1970 173
1971 178
1972 187
1973 186
1974 191
1975 187
1976 189
1977 190
1978 189
1979 190
Sickness/unemployment benefit (b)
1964 176
1965 199
1966 199
1967 318
1968 318
1969 329
1970 329
1971 354
1972 356
1973 342
1974 345
1975 327
1976 323
1977 326
1978 321
1979 308
Retirement pensions (c)
1964 149
1965 168
1966 168
1967 173
1968 173
1969 172
1970 172
1971 177
1972 183
1973 191
1974 216
1975 215
1976 219
1977 221
1978 228
1979 232
Family allowance/child benefit (d)
1964 85
1965 85
1966 82
1967 80
1968 77
1969 72
1970 69
1971 80
1972 75
1973 68
1974 78
1975 69
1976 72
1977 69
1978 82
1979 102
Notes:
(a) Refers to married couple. (b) Refers to man plus dependent wife. (c) Refers to man plus wife on his insurance. After 1971 refers to recipients under 80 years old. (d) Includes family allowance and tax allowance combined for second child up to 1977, when these were unified into the child benefit.
Percentage change in social security benefits, prices, and earnings since previous updating (1974-1978):[35]
Unemployment and sickness benefit (a)
July 1974
17.0
April 1975
14.0
November 1975
13.3
November 1976
16.2
November 1977
14.0
November 1978
7.1
Retirement pension (b)
July 1974
29.0
April 1975
16.0
November 1975
14.7
November 1976
15.0
November 1977
14.4
November 1978
11.4
Prices (c)
July 1974
13.5
April 1975
17.7
November 1975
11.7
November 1976
15.0
November 1977
13.0
November 1978
8,1
Average earnings (d)
July 1974
12.9
April 1975
17.4
November 1975
10.7
November 1976
12.8
November 1977
9.6
November 1978
14.6
Total increase October 1973 – 1978
Unemployment and sickness benefit (a)
114.3
Retirement pension (b)
151.6
Prices (c)
109.6
Average earnings (d)
107.9
(a) Single person. (b) Single pensioner under age 80. (c) General index of retail prices. (d) Average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult male manual workers. For November 1978, October 1977 to October 1978 increase used.
Unemployment or sickness benefits as percentage of net income (a) at average earnings (b):[35]
Single person
1965 Excl. ERS: 27.0 Inc. ERS (c): 27.0
1970 Excl. ERS: 25.0 Inc. ERS (c): 53.3
1973 Excl. ERS: 24.8 Inc. ERS (c): 48.4
1974 Excl. ERS: 25.6 Inc. ERS (c): 48.6
1975 Excl. ERS: 24.5 Inc. ERS (c): 45.9
1976 Excl. ERS: 24.9 Inc. ERS (c): 46.7
1977 Excl. ERS: 25.8 Inc. ERS (c): 47.9
1978 Excl. ERS: 25.4 Inc. ERS (c): 45.1
Married couple
1965 Excl. ERS: 41.2 Inc. ERS (c): 41.2
1970 Excl. ERS: 38.4 Inc. ERS (c): 65.2
1973 Excl. ERS: 38.7 Inc. ERS (c): 61.5
1974 Excl. ERS: 39.5 Inc. ERS (c): 61.6
1975 Excl. ERS: 38.0 Inc. ERS (c): 58.4
1976 Excl. ERS: 38.3 Inc. ERS (c): 59.1
1977 Excl. ERS: 39.1 Inc. ERS (c): 59.9
1978 Excl. ERS: 38.8 Inc. ERS (c): 57.4
Married couple with two children
1965 Excl. ERS: 49.3 Inc. ERS (c) 49.3
1970 Excl. ERS: 48.3 Inc. ERS (c): 72.7
1973 Excl. ERS: 49.5 Inc. ERS (c): 70.6
1974 Excl. ERS: 50.2 Inc. ERS (c): 70.3
1975 Excl. ERS: 48.3 Inc. ERS (c): 67.0
1976 Excl. ERS: 48.4 Inc. ERS (c): 67.3
1977 Excl. ERS: 49.7 Inc. ERS (c): 68.8
1978 Excl. ERS: 49.6 Inc. ERS (c): 66.9
(a) After allowing for income tax and national insurance contributions. (b) Average earnings of adult male manual workers. (c) Earnings Related Supplement calculated using average earnings in October of the relevant tax year.
See also
Housing:
References
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found. https://books.google.com/books/about/?id=zW2ungEACAAJ
- ↑ Ferragina, Emanuele, and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser. "Thematic Review: Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures?." Policy & Politics 39.4 (2011): 583-611. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/pap/2011/00000039/00000004/art00010
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found. http://www.spicker.uk/social-policy/uk.htm
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/815/815-i.pdf
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271654/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-2012-13_estimates-160114.pdf
- ↑ Church of England bishops demand action over hunger
- ↑ What it is like to rely on food banks?
- ↑ Disability payments delay 'forced claimants to use food banks'
- ↑ Welfare delays cause soaring numbers using food banks
- ↑ Terminally ill benefit claimants asked when they expect to die, MP says
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 Labour and inequality: sixteen fabian essays edited by Peter Townsend and Nicholas Bosanquet
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 The Labour Party in Crisis by Paul Whiteley
- ↑ Taxation, Wage Bargaining and Unemployment by Isabela Mares
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Labour and equality : a Fabian study of Labour in power, 1974-79 edited by Nick Bosanquet and Peter Townsend
Bibliography
- Esping-Andersen, Gosta; "The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism", Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press (1990).
- Ferragina, Emanuele and Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin; Welfare Regime Debate: Past, Present, Futures?; Policy & Politics, Vol. 39 (4), pp. 583–611 (2011).http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/pap/2011/00000039/00000004/art00010.
External links
- Text of the Beveridge Report
- The Welfare State – Never Ending Reform Brief history of the Welfare State by Frank Field (BBC website)
