The Report On Social Insurance And Allied Services History Essay The Report On Social Insurance And Allied Services History Essay Published: Last Edited: 23rd March, 2015 This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. What were the most important features of The Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services (1942) and why were they significant. In your answer take care to outline the so-called 'five giants' and evaluate whether the report realistically attempted to tackle them all. In 1942 William Beveridge published his report on Social Insurance and Allied Services. The report instantly became a best seller of all time. The report was based on eliminating poverty and it has subsequently come to be considered as the blueprint of the welfare state. The Beveridge Report was identified as the core of wartime social transformation. It became very significant at a time when unemployment was at an ultimate high, the report "was seen by many people the light at the end of the tunnel of war, and as a promise of "social justice" for the post war world" (Gladstone, 1999. p39).

Beveridge was asked to write a detailed report on how to improve the existing national schemes of social insurance and allied services. The report was built on defeating "Want", but Want was only one of the five giants on the road to reconstruction. The others were Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. His recommendation of the system on social insurance was to rectify the poor conditions of post-war Britain and it was an attack solely upon Want, which would remove poverty. This essay will look at what are the main features of The Beveridge Report and why they were significant. It will also examine whether the report realistically attempted to tackle all the so-called "five giants" which is mentioned in the report. The Beveridge Report which is titled Social Insurance and Allied Services is a product of one of the earliest attempts of the wartime coalition government to give deliberation to the issues of postwar reconstruction. After World War Two Britain was suffering extremely high levels of poverty and unemployment and in order to change this situation Beveridge came up with a very effective analysis of the way in which a methodical social insurance scheme could be built up, combined with a strong advocacy of the policies needed to assist such an insurance scheme (Hill, 1990).

The road to reconstruction after the war involved attacking the five giants, however Beveridge namely focused on Want. All though his report mentions all the other giants, the bulk of the report's 299 pages were dedicated to the elimination of Want and recommendations on defeating all the problems of want (Timmins, 2001). Beveridge made recommendations which were built upon the existing system of social security. The main feature of the report was based on a unified universal scheme of social insurance- "that is, a system of insurance in which risks are pooled within the community, so that individuals are able to pay flat-rate contributions and receive flat-rate benefits regardless of the extent to which they are liable to be in need of those benefits" (Hill, 1990, p28). The plan for social security was to eradicate Want, but in order to achieve this; there must be co-operation between the state and the individual. Bevereidge said that the state should offer security for service and contribution; by this the state should consider the need for a national minimum, which should provide individuals with the minimum for himself and his family to live on. However, he stated that this minimum should be given as of right and not means tested.

(Timmins, 2001) Beveridge boldly made three assumptions which were to make it work; a universal scheme of family allowances, a comprehensive national health service, which was financed by taxation and thirdly the maintenance of employment. The first two assumptions were part of the insurance scheme of social security, and became the most expensive prerequisites. The third assumption worked two ways; it maximized the number of contributors and minimized the number of people claiming benefits. Beveridge's main investigation into social security was to reform all social services and provide a minimum of subsistence for the whole population. He believed that to eradicate poverty a reform of social insurance was vital and this can be achieved by provision of benefits and services (Thane, 1996). The universal scheme was split into six groups and it was designed to cover people in actual or potential need. He defined these groups as: "employees, self-employed, housewife's, those below and above working age, the sick and disabled and others of working age fit to work" (Lowe, 2005, p141). Housewives were particularly a difficult group to cover, and this will be discussed further.

The people who fall into these groups should receive the following benefits: unemployment and sickness benefits, disability benefit which also covered injuries at work, maternity grants and widow benefits, funeral benefits, family allowances and retirement pensions. However, even though this system of social insurance (which was later changed to national insurance) was there to provide subsistence-levels of adequate benefits, Beveridge knew there might be other circumstances where it would not be enough, and he therefore recommended another system of social assistance (which was also later changed to national assistance). This scheme would work through means test to provide for people whose needs were not met by national insurance. People who qualify for national assistance, for example are disabled people, deserted or separated wives and men who refuse to take on work when it is offered to them. The need for assistance could, for example, arise for reasons of sickness which meant they were not able to work and get into the labour market. Beveridge stressed that national assistance is only an alternative as it is means-tested, which is what he wanted to steer away from. Along with Beveridge's proposal for national insurance and national assistance, he also proposed family allowances. This proposal came from a post-war issue of child poverty and low wages being paid to people who have large families.

He said that family allowances were an essential part of an adequate social security system. The idea of family allowances had already been proposed by other economists such as Keynes, and many of his ideas were taken from what other people had already come up with. Beveridge insisted on family allowances to be non-contributory and financed through general taxation, for it would be too much for people who have large families and low wages to make contributions. "He proposed that 8s should be paid to every dependent child except the first" (Brown, 1995). However, the government was reluctant to pay 8s because it exceeded the limit given by the Treasury, so in 1945 the Family Allowances Act was introduced at a rate of 5s. This act became significant at a time when children and large families were suffering a lot; consequently this legislation improved the rate of child poverty. Beveridge's second major assumption was a comprehensive health and rehabilitation service which was to cure disease and help workers get back to work when they are sick, and make them available for work when it is offered. This service was to be available for all members of the community and free at the point of consumption.

The service was not based on national insurance contributions but funded by taxation. There had already been deliberation before the Beveridge Report was published on making a comprehensive, free medical service, but the Beveridge Report got the government engaged into this more and in 1946 the National Health Service (NHS) was introduced. Before the NHS was introduced, medical services in Britain were not fulfilling the needs of people and the service was very poor. One of Beveridge's five giants was Disease and the road to reconstruction was to tackle this post-war crisis, and by making the proposal of introducing the NHS which is free for everyone was an attempt to tackle Disease. His third assumption was maintenance of full employment. Beveridge said that unemployment is a crucial problem which needs to be solved and without change, social improvement was impossible (Thane, 1996). In his Report he defined the need to avoid mass unemployment by keeping the rate of unemployment at an average of no more than 8.5%.

However, by the end of the Second World War and the mid 1970's the unemployment rate was accomplished and what in fact happened was that the unemployment rate fell below the 8.5% that Beveridge had suggested (Hill, 1990). In the report he assumed that if full employment was achieved, this, in theory would tackle idleness. As mentioned before, the Beveridge Report was primarily aimed at proposing a set of recommendations for setting up a system of social insurance, which was mainly an attack on Want. However, the other giants were also briefly mentioned in the report, but not to a great extent. After World War Two people had no houses to come back to, and the education system was failing terribly, there was an increase in poverty, unemployment and no adequate health care was available. To fight the five giants he gave a vital kick to start the programmes that he thought could give freedom not only from Want, but the others too. The report in practice does not mention education to a great deal or in detail apart from his trumpet call for the attack on Ignorance. Nor does he talk about Squalor in detail, which involves providing houses.

This is due to the fact that Beveridge struggled over how to handle rent within social security as living cost varied individually and regionally, and as a result national insurance was not enough to cover people which meant they had to apply for national assistance (Timmins, 2001). He proposed a comprehensive national health service which was to tackle Disease, but free medical care would not only prevent disease, but this again would reduce poverty (attack on Want) as it would make people available for work due to the free medical care. However, the creation of the NHS caused problems on economic grounds as it was very expensive to run a free medical service at the point of use. Beveridge's attack on Idleness was to provide high levels of full time employment. This attack on the five giants is linked with Want, because not having a job would mean people have to depend upon benefits, and to make the social security system work there needs to be more people in employment and less people claiming benefits. This is why Beveridge described the course of arguing a full employment was a prerequisite of an adequate system of social security (Brown, 1995).

Looking at the five giants that Beveridge said must be attacked in order to change post-war Britain; he did not mention the other five giants in too much detail as he did with defeating Want. He therefore did not realistically attempt to tackle all the five giants, and truthfully not even Beveridge could not stretch his terms of reference that far. It was hard enough trying to implement his main proposals of social insurance, thus if he aimed his report on defeating all the giants then nothing probably would have come of it. Having said that, the government did listen to what he had to say about the others, as the education system was improved and in 1944 the Education Act was introduced and in 1949 the Housing Act was legislated. Even though his report does not mention tackling the five giants in great detail, his brief statement on conquering them all was taken in by the government, as it would lead the road to post-war reconstruction which Britain needed so badly. We have established that the main features of the Beveridge Report and the crucial elements of Beveridge's proposals were that everyone was included; they were covered "from the cradle to grave" and benefits would be at a level which enabled a family to live without recourse to other means.

The six fundamental principles of the report were: flat rate of subsistence benefits; flat rate of contribution; unification of administrative responsibility; adequacy of benefit; comprehensiveness; and classification. (Lowe, 2005). Beveridge's proposal of national insurance and national assistance was adopted almost at its entirety. In 1945 the Family Allowance Act was legislated, subsequently in 1946 the National Insurance Act was introduced, shortly following the National Assistance Act in 1948. These legislations were vital in what Beveridge had recommended as the main features of his report. He understood that if his recommendations had been enacted then Britain would have an ideal social security system which would provide adequate relief to the people in need and improve unemployment and it gave people hope. This was the crucial part to reconstruction. His proposals became essential and it changed the British social security system for the better as it relieved poverty. However, this was short lived as poverty was rediscovered again. (Lowe, 2005) This leads us to the criticisms of The Beveridge Report and why many of his proposals were later discarded and altered from what he originally proposed.

One of the problems of Beveridge's proposals was with women, particularly married women. Beveridge recommended that all married women should be eligible for a wide range of benefits "by the virtue of their husbands' contributions". (Lowe, 2005, p141) Most married women were not in paid work at that time, but women who worked could opt to pay lower contributions and in return they will qualify for the full range of benefits, though below the standard rate. The feminists were his major critics, as Beveridge's explicit assumption of married women should enter into partnership with their husband and remain economically "dependent" upon them goes against what the feminists stand for (Hill, 1990). However, the main underprivileged groups are the non-working single women and even after efforts being made to meet their needs, nothing came of it. He also did not find a satisfactory solution for separated, divorced and widowed women within the insurance scheme. Women were generally not equally represented in the labour market and it wasn't that they chose not to participate, but they were excluded from any competition with men.

So when Beveridge recommended a "housewives charter" which would provide grants upon marriage, free domestic help when ill and a separation allowance, this gave hope to the women. However, this was overlooked by critics, as his proposal was dismissed by the government and became a weakness of his Report. This flaw in the implementation of the report has questioned Beveridge's aim to change social provision for housewives as it regarded women as dependants of their husbands and not treated equally. Beveridge's proposals were promising if they had been implemented by the government, but there were many compromises which had to be made in order to adopt his proposals. Many of Beveridge's proposals had been rejected by the Treasury on the grounds that it was excessively expensive; this was a flaw both politically and in practical terms. Due to this, there was a very lengthy perusal for his recommendations. Beveridge was not liked by Churchill as he also believed that Beveridges recommendations was far too expensive; it would create doubtful prospects for the post-war economy and form hopes for the people of the country which the post-war government could not satisfy (Thane, 1996).

His system lacked sufficient resources to respond to inflation and changes in social need or social demand (Lowe, 2005, p135). Even though the report gained popularity, it also received widespread criticisms, such as; the pension rates were too low and even stronger fear that the government would ignore the report as a whole (Thane 1996). The principle of flat-rate contributions and benefits were wholly abandoned ( which was the main idea of the report) with the introduction to earnings-related contributions and benefits. Furthermore, Beveridge's proposal for retirement pension, which he said should gradually be phased in over a period of 20 years was also not implemented. This was because "it would make arrangements for individulas who had not previously contributed to the retirement scheme to qualify for very much more quickly than that" (Hill, 1990, p31). The issue of retirement pension became a major error in the enactment of his recommendations and it did not agree with the government as it was politically unacceptable. Therefore this proposal was also changed. Benefits were generally at lower levels than Beveridge suggested. This can be seen with the family allowances, which was changed from 8s to 5s.

Another weakness of his report which critics argue contradicts his main proposals is the principle of universalism and adequacy. If Beveridge's main objective was to eliminate Want, then why were those in need not targeted for relief? "Universalism would involve a vast bureaucratic exercise to collect contributions from people and distribute benefits to those who do not need state support" (Lowe, 2005, p143). This would then fail effectively to help those who are genuinely in need because benefits will be too widely distributed. The principle of adequacy and universalism was to eliminate means test and not rely on national assistance benefits, but quite the opposite occurred and it was then inevitable that the cost-conscious government would reject the principle of adequacy. Many of Beveridge's proposals were contradicted when they were implemented, and it destroyed the logic of the report. As did the agreement the government came to when they said that "the rate of benefit should only be one which provided a reasonable insurance against want". (Lowe, 2005, p144) This automatically meant that insurance contributions were no longer a guarantee that people will be freed from poverty and that would have to result in applying for means-tested national assistance.

Rather than diminishing the use of national assistance as predicted by the report, it became increasingly important. Beveridge's proposals became significant, as his main proposal for social insurance was accepted by the government, although after some alteration, they were legislated and became the foundation of his report. However, a report which was said to be a blueprint of post-war reform was far from revolutionary or logical. Even though some of his proposals were enacted, they were changed vastly from what Beveridge had proposed to begin with. All this did not come without recourse to other measures, which was seeking national assistance. This subsidiary benefit was supposed to wither away, but in fact the number of claimants increased. Along with the fact that it was impractical, the high cost of national insurance emphasised the failure of Beveridge's principle of the unification of administrative responsibility.

Beveridge hoped that through the establishment of one responsible ministry, which were the Ministry of Social Security, both government and claimants would become the beneficiaries of a greater "co-ordination, simplicity and economy" (Lowe, 2005, p141), but this was far from the case as they did not achieve this and Want was relieved by a wide range of means-tested benefits which were administered by other local governments (Lowe, 2005). Several proposals which Beveridge made were either changed when they were implemented or they were completely abandoned. His proposals were contradicted when people had to rely on means-tested benefits, which was what he was against and wanted to change in the first place. The Bevridge Report then leads us to question, was it actually successful and why did it become significant. In conclusion, The Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services was specifically aimed at setting up an insurance scheme which would change the existing social security system and set out a more ideal scheme through a simplified system of state relief without resort to means tested benefits.

This was the main feature of the report, which was the solution to relieve poverty and improve unemployment, as it will attack Want, one of the five giants and the road to post-war reconstruction. The Beveridge Report was a practical blueprint for reform and of the welfare state; however it was far from revolutionary or logical. To begin with it received immense enthusiasm and it gave people hope, however this changed when an ever rising number of those in need were never automatically freed from poverty as his report had promised, but in fact they had to claim means-tested benefits and later his principle of flat-rate contributions and benefit were abandoned. This visionary document was impractical and not well suited, as it was extremely expensive and this is why the government rejected many of his proposals, particularly the principle of adequacy. However, the Beveridge report can be seen to be a flawed blueprint for the eradication of poverty because it did not stick to the original objective which was the insurance principle and was eventually eroded. The report was significant as it was the founder of the welfare state, which still remains the basis for today's social security system.

Even though the report talks about the five giants, it does not realistically attempt to attack all of them, it merely mentions them and that they all have to be defeated in order to achieve social transformation to improve the post-war conditions. However, there has been continued aim by the government to defeat all of them and they have succeeded in doing so. The proposals for social security may have been seen as an innovation but it was an attempt at tackling irreconcilable goals. History of Social Work, details The architect of the welfare state Most social work in western European countries is currently delivered within the context of the welfare state, whose origins can be traced back to the work of Sir William Henry Beveridge at the time of the Second World War. Beveridge was born in 1879 in India, at that time part of the British Empire. He studied law at Oxford University where he became fascinated by early forms of social security, rapidly turning into an authority on pensions and unemployment benefits. At the beginning of the twentieth century, his thinking already had an impact on the development of a national insurance scheme and influenced policy on poverty in the UK. Soon after the First World War, he was knighted.

His work was greatly influenced by the Fabian Society , who clearly also liked his work for they gave him the post of director of the London School of Economics (LSE). Early on during the Second World War, the Minister of Health commissioned a committee to investigate the state of social services and welfare benefits in the UK and invited Beveridge to be chair. In 1942, the report Social Insurance and Allied Services was published, which quickly simply became known as ‘the Beveridge report’. It was followed in 1944 by a report entitled Full Employment in a Free Society. Both reports were to have far reaching consequences, way beyond the government’s initial intentions. Beveridge’s work labeled the main challenges for social policy as ‘the five giants’: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. Social insurance was but one element introduced to address these challenges. Equally important were education, health care, and housing and employment services. Social workers are currently active in all of these sectors. Beveridge argued for the state to have a central role in guaranteeing the necessary resources for people`s welfare, as well as being the main provider of services.

Every citizen would contribute to this universal system through national insurance payments, set according to his/her capabilities, and would be able to make use of it according to his/her needs. Key to all this was full employment. In 1945, the Labour party won the elections and defeated Churchill. They quickly announced their intention to build a welfare state based on solidarity and regular earnings-related contributions, as described by Beveridge. This resulted in, among other things, the establishment of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948. The relevance of Beveridge`s approach was however not confined to the United Kingdom. Many leading politicians from across the world spent time in London during the Second World War, and were well aware of the proposals contained in the Beveridge report. Once peace was achieved, the ideas were exported by, for example, Aart van Rhijn to the Netherlands and Louis Major to Belgium. As such, it can be said that Beveridge was the architect of world-wide models for the modern welfare state. There may have been one blueprint, but it was not just one type of welfare state that developed. Inevitably strategies for implementing the ideas in the Beveridge report were influenced by local politics and economic circumstances.

As a consequence welfare systems across the world differ from each other and diverge from the original plans. Useful classifications of welfare states to describe this diversity have been made by Richard Titmuss (1974) and later by Gøsta Esping-Andersens (1990). This text was written by Jan Steyaert Date of first publication: 02-2010 Date of latest revision: 04-2013 Read more Lynes, T. (1984), William Beveridge, in: P. Barker (Ed.), Founders of the welfare state (pp. 90-97). London: Heinemann Additional information NHS Reforms timeline | The Nuffield Trust Medical treatment covering all requirements will be provided for all citizens by a national health service Sir William Beveridge (1942) Sir William Beveridge’s report, Social Insurance and Allied Services, proposes major changes to create the foundations for a welfare system and, in its support, a national health service (the details are left for later).

1942December Medical treatment covering all requirements will be provided for all citizens by a national health service Sir William Beveridge (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services (The Beveridge Report) The right to medical treatment for everyone under a new national health service is proposed by an inter-departmental committee led by Sir William Beveridge . The committee was asked to: “undertake, with special reference to the inter-relation of the schemes, a survey of the existing national schemes of social insurance and allied services”. One of the provisions of Beveridge’s committee was that: “medical treatment covering all requirements will be provided for all citizens by a national health service organised under the health departments and post-medical rehabilitation treatment will be provided for all persons capable of profiting by it”. 1944Feburary The White Paper, A National Health Service, is published, which was prepared by Minister for Health, Henry Willink. 1944February Wide-ranging discussions with the medical professions and health organisations, culminates in a complex plan in which local authorities play a major role. Image credit: © IWM ((MOW) L 55651).

1945July The 1945 British General Election takes place in early July following a month-long campaign. 1945July Both the Conservative and Labour parties commit themselves to ensuring free access to health care services in their respective manifestos. Choice of general practitioner (GP) features prominently as a priority, as does the need to improve maternity services. Image: Clement Atlee who served as British Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951. Credit: Wikimedia Commons , 1957. 1945August Aneurin Bevan is made Minster for Health following the 1945 General Election. 1945August The NHS is given the power to levy a charge for prescriptions. 1949December The National Health Service Act 1946, which set up the NHS, contains a provision that NHS services should be provided free of charge unless that Act expressly provided for a charge. Legislation providing for a prescriptions charge is passed by the Labour Government through the NHS (Amendment) Act 1949. This allows for such a charge, and exemptions to it, to be introduced by regulations.

Although the power is introduced in 1949, the charge itself is not introduced until 1952. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons , 1946 © R Lee. 1949 The Understanding Of The Welfare History Sociology Essay The Understanding Of The Welfare History Sociology Essay Published: Last Edited: 23rd March, 2015 This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. In 1942 William Beveridge published his report on Social Insurance and Allied Services. The report instantly became a best seller of all time. The report was based on eliminating poverty and it has subsequently come to be considered as the blueprint of the welfare state. The Beveridge Report was identified as the core of wartime social transformation. It became very significant at a time when unemployment was at an ultimate high, the report "was seen by many people the light at the end of the tunnel of war, and as a promise of "social justice" for the post war world". (Gladstone, 1999. p39) Beveridge was asked to write a detailed report on how to improve the existing national schemes of social insurance and allied services.

The report was built on defeating "Want". But Want was only one of the five giants on the road to reconstruction. The others were Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. His recommendations of the system on social insurance were to rectify the poor conditions of post-war Britain and it was an attack solely upon Want which would remove poverty. This essay will look at what are the main features of The Beveridge Report and why they were significant. It will also examine whether the report realistically attempted to tackle all the so-called "five giants" which is mentioned in the report. The main feature of the report was based on a scheme of social insurance- "that is, a system of insurance in which risks are pooled within the community, so that individuals are able to pay flat-rate contributions sand receive flat-rate benefits regardless of the extent to which they are liable to be in need of those benefits". (Hill, 1990, p28) The plan for social security was to eradicate "want" but in order for this to be achieved there must be co-operation between the state and the individual.

Bevereidge said that the state should offer security for service and contribution; by this the state should consider the need for a national minimum, which should provide individuals with the minimum for himself and his family to live on. However, he stated that this minimum should be given as of right and not means tested, so that individuals can build upon it freely. (Timmins, 2001, p23) Taking social insurance as the base of the report, Beveridge boldly made three assumptions which were to make it work; a universal scheme of family allowances, a comprehensive national health service, which was financed by taxation and the maintenance of employment. The first two assumptions were part of the insurance scheme of social security, and was the most expensive prerequisites. The third assumption worked two ways; it maximized the number of contributors and minimized the number of people claiming benefits. Beveridge's main investigation into social security was to reform all social services and provide a minimum of subsistence and care for the whole population. He believed that to eradicate poverty a reform of national insurance was vital and this can be achieved by provision of benefits and services. His proposal for social insurance and minimum subsistence was supplemented by private and voluntary means.

(Thane, 1996, p232) The universal scheme was split into six groups and it was designed to cover people in actual or potential need. He defined these groups as: employees, self-employed, housewife's, those below and above working age, the sick and disable and others of working age fit to work. (Lowe, 2005, p141) Housewives were particularly a difficult group to cover, and this will be discussed further later. The people who fall into these groups should receive the following benefits: unemployment and sickness benefits, disability benefit which also covered injuries at work, maternity grants and widow benefits, funeral benefits, family allowances and retirement pensions. However, even though this system of social insurance (which was later changed to national insurance) was there to provide subsistence-levels of adequate benefits, Beveridge knew there might be other circumstances where it would not be enough, and he therefore recommended another system of social assistance.(which was also later changed to national assistance) This scheme would work through means test to provide for people whose needs were not met by national insurance.

People who qualify for national assistance, for example are disabled people, deserted or separated wives and men who refused to take on work when it is offered to them. The need for assistance could arise for reasons of sickness which meant they were not able to work and get into the labour market. This could be because a person has abnormal needs of diet or care. Along with Beveridge's proposal for national insurance and national assistance, he also proposed family allowances. This proposal came from a post-war issue of child poverty and low wages being paid to people who have large families. He said that family allowances were an essential part of an adequate social security system. The idea of family allowances had already been proposed by other economists such as Keynes. Beveridge insisted on family allowances to be non-contributory and financed through general taxation, for it would be too much for people who have large families and low wages to make contributions. This would cause a great burden on employment. He proposed that 8s should be paid to every dependent child except the first. However, the government was reluctant to pay 8s because it exceeded the limit given by the Treasury, so in 1945 the Family Allowances was introduced at a rate of 5s.

Beveridge's second major assumption was comprehensive health and rehabilitation service which was to cure disease and help workers get back to work when they are sick, and make them available for work when it is offered. This would also prevent the reasons for unemployment and poverty. This service is to be available for all members of the community and free at the point of consumption. This service was not based on national insurance contributions but funded by taxation. There had already been deliberation before the Beveridge Report was published on making a comprehensive, free medical service, but the Beveridge Report got the government engaged into this more and in 1946 the National Health Service (NHS) was introduced. Before the NHS was introduced, medical services in Britain were not fulfilling the needs of people and the service was very poor. One of Beveridge's five giants was Disease and the road to reconstruction was to tackle this post-war crisis, and by making the proposal of introducing the NHS which is free for everyone was an attempt to tackle Disease. His third assumption was maintenance of full employment. Beveridge said that unemployment is a crucial problem which needs to be solved and without change, social improvement was impossible.

(Thane, 1996, p239) In his Report he defined the need to avoid mass unemployment by keeping the rate of unemployment at an average of no more than 8 and a half per cent. However, by the end of the Second World War and the mid 1970's the unemployment rate was accomplished and what in fact happened was that the unemployment rate fell below 8 and a half per cent that Beveridge had suggested. (Hill, 1990, p30) In the report he based his assumption that full time employment will be achieved, which in theory would tackle idleness. As mentioned before the report on Social Insurance and Allied Services was particularly aimed at proposing a set of recommendations for setting up a system of social insurance, which will be mainly an attack on the giant Want. However, the other giants were also briefly mentioned in the report, but not to a great extent. After World War Two people had no houses to come back to, and the education system was failing terribly, there was an increase in poverty, unemployment and no adequate health care was available.

To fight the five giants he gave a vital kick to start the programmes that he thought could give freedom not only from want, but the others too. The report in practice does not mention education to a great deal or detail apart from his trumpet call for the attack on Ignorance. Nor does he talk about Squalor in detail, which involves providing houses. This is due to the fact that Beveridge struggled over how to handle rents within the social security. (Timmins, 2001, p24) He proposed a comprehensive national health service which was to tackle Disease, but that is debatable as a free medical care would not only prevent disease but it would reduce poverty which will attack Want, so this linked into his main idea of his report. However, the creation of the NHS would cause problems on economic grounds as it was very expensive to run a free medical service at the point of use. Beveridge's attack on Idleness was to provide high levels of full time employment. This attack on the five giants is linked with Want, as not having a job creates poverty, which then means people have to depend upon benefits, and to make the social security system work there needs to be more people in employment and less people claiming benefits.

This is why Beveridge described the course of arguing a full employment was a prerequisite of an adequate system of social security. (Brown, 1995, p84) Looking at the five giants that Beveridge said must be attacked in order to change post-war Britain; he did not mention the other five giants in too much detail as he did with defeating Want. He therefore did not realistically attempt to tackle all the five giants, and let's be honest even Beveridge could not stretch his terms of reference that far. It was hard enough trying to implement his main proposals of social insurance, so if he aimed his report on defeating all the giants then nothing probably would have come of it and it would not have been as successful as it was. We have established that the main features of the Beveridge Report which are a set of recommendations for the setting up of a system of social insurance. The crucial elements of Beveridge's proposals were that everyone was included; they were covered "from the cradle to grave" and benefits would be at a level which enabled a family to live without recourse to other means.

The six fundamental principles of the report were: flat rate of subsistence benefits; flat rate of contribution; unification of administrative responsibility; adequacy of benefit; comprehensive; and classification. Based on them, and the proposal of national assistance which operated through means test, the aim the report was to eliminate Want under any circumstances. The Beveridge Report was a successful seller and the main features of the report became significant, as it gave hope to the people of Britain who were suffering from poverty and unemployment at extreme highs. Beveridge's proposal of national insurance and national assistance, was adopted almost at its entirety. In 1945 Family Allowance Act was legislated, subsequently in 1946 the National Insurance Act was introduced, shortly following the National Assistant Act in 1948. These legislations were significant in what Beveridge had recommended as the main features of his report. He understood that if his recommendations had been enacted then Britain would have an ideal social security system which will provide adequate relief to the people in need and improve unemployment. However, there are many criticisms of The Beveridge Report and why many of his proposals were later abandoned and changed from what he initially proposed.

One of the problems of Beveridge's proposals was with women, in particularly married women. Beveridge recommended that all married women should be eligible for a wide range of benefits "by the virtue of their husbands' contributions". (Lowe, 2005, p141) Most married women were not in paid work at that time, but women who worked could opt to pay lower contributions and in return they will qualify for the full range of benefits, though below the standard rate. The feminists were his major critics, as Beveridge's explicit assumption of married women should enter into partnership with their husband and remain economically dependent upon them goes against what the feminists stand for. It also does not fit the present day situation, in which nearly half of all married women are in paid work. (Hill, 1990, p33) However, the main underprivileged groups are the non-working single women and even after efforts being made to meet their needs, nothing came of it. He also did not find a satisfactory solution for separated, divorced and widowed women within an insurance scheme. Women were generally not equally represented or rewarded in the labour market and they did not choose to not participate, but they were excluded from any competition with men.

So when Beveridge recommended a "housewives charter" which would allow provide grants upon marriage, free domestic help when ill and a separation allowance, it gave hope to the women. However, this was overlooked by critics, as his proposal was dismissed by the government and became a weakness of his Report. This flaw in the implementation of the report has questioned Beveridge's aim to change social provision for housewives as it regarded women as dependants of their husbands and not treated equally to men. Beveridge's proposals were very significant in what he had promised would happen if they were implemented by the government, which is relieving poverty. But there were many compromises which had to be made in order to adopt his proposals. Many of Beveridge's proposals had been rejected by the Treasury on the grounds that it was excessively expensive; this was a flaw both politically and in practical terms. Due to this there was a very lengthy perusal for his recommendations. Beveridge was not liked by Churchhill very much as he also believed that Beveridges recommendations was far too expensive; it would create doubtful prospects for the post-war economy and form hopes for the people of the country which the post-war government could not satisfy.

(Thane, 1996, p235) His susten lacked sufficient resourses to respond to inflation or changes in social need or social demand. (Lowe, 2005, p135) Even though the report gained popularity, it also received widespread criticisms like the pension rates are too low and stronger fear that the government will ignore the report. (Thane 1996, p235)Beveridge's proposal that retirement pension should gradually be phased in over a period of 20 years was not implemented. This was because it would make arrangements for people who had not contributed to the retirement scheme previously to qualify for very much more quickly than that. Benefits were generally at lower levels than Beveridge suggested. This can be seen with the family allowances, which he said should start at 8s but the government changed it to 5s. Another weakness of his report which critics argue contradicts his main proposals is the principle of universalism and adequacy. If Beveridge's main objective was to eliminate Want then why were those in need not targeted for relief?

The universalism scheme essentially means that vast contributions will be collected from and benefits will be distributed to those who do not need help from the state. This would then fail effectively to help those who are genuinely in need because benefits will be too widely distributed. The principle of adequacy and universalism was to eliminate means test and not rely on national assistance benefits, but quite the opposite occurred and it was then inevitable that the cost-conscious government would reject the principle of adequacy. Many of Beveridge's proposals were contradicted when they were implemented, and it destroyed the logic of the report. As did the agreement the government came to when they said that "the rate of benefit should only be one which provided a reasonable insurance against want". (Lowe, 2005, p144) This automatically meant that insurance contributions was no longer a guarantee that people will be freed from poverty and that would have to result in applying for means-tested national assistance. Rather than diminishing the use of national assistance as predicted by the report, it became increasingly significant. Beveridge's proposals became significant, as the main acts of social insurance were accepted by the government, although after some alteration, they were legislated and brcame the foundation of his report.

However, a report which was said to be a blueprint of post-war reform was far from revolutionary or logical. Even though some of his proposals were enacted, they were changed vastly from what Beveridge had proposed to begin with. All this did not come without recourse to other measures, which was seeking national assistance. This subsidiary benefit was supposed to wither away, but in fact the number of claimants increased. Furthermore, many of his proposals were abandoned and did not make Along with the fact that it was impractical, the high cost of social insurance emphasises the failure of Beveridge's principle of the unification of administrative responsibility. Beveridge hoped that through the establishment of one responsible ministry, which were the Ministry of Social Security, both government and claimants would become the beneficiaries of a greater "co-ordination, simplicity and economy", (Lowe, 2005, p141) but this was far from the case as they did not achieve this and Want was relieved by a wide range of means-tested benefits which were administered by other local governments and the NHS. (Lowe, 2005, p159) Several proposals which Beveridge made were either changed when they were implemented or they were completely abandoned.

The reason for this was mainly because as mentioned previously, they were illogical, impractical and very expensive. And his proposals were contradicted when people had to rely on means-tested benefits, which was what he was against and wanted to change. In conclusion, House of Commons - Social Security - Fifth Report House of Commons Select Committee on Social Security Fifth Report THE CONTRIBUTORY PRINCIPLE The relationship between tax and National Insurance 20. National Insurance contributions are increasingly described by the Government as a form of taxation.[ 41 ] The transfer of the Contributions Agency (which collects contributions) from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue, and recent steps by the Chancellor to align the conditions for payment of National Insurance contributions to income tax (see below) suggests an attempt to equate the two. However, there are important differences. The base of the charge is far narrower for National Insurance, which is based on earnings. Income tax is charged on all income, including income from savings, investments, and pensions. The period of assessment is also markedly different. Income tax is based on an assessment of income over a year, whereas National Insurance contributions are assessed fully and finally on earnings for each pay period, usually a week or a month.

The structure of the charge differs, in that individuals' tax thresholds vary depending on the various allowances and reliefs they qualify for, whereas the threshold for paying National Insurance Contributions is standard for all earners. And whereas income tax is charged without an upper ceiling, employees' National Insurance contributions are only charged up to the Upper Earnings Limit. 21. Another difference is the system of accounting for money paid. National Insurance contributions go into a specific Fund.

Mr Field said, "For those paying for welfare, a significant advantage of the contributory principle over simple funding by taxation is the inherent transparency of making a designated contribution."[ 42 ] The Government Actuary took a similar view, pointing to the greater scope for parliamentary accountability: "From the point of view of parliamentary control I would say that the National Insurance Fund has a very important function because it does focus through the uprating process, the annual review and the reports that we do in connection with that, on whether there is a proper approach being taken to the benefits uprating, whether they are being considered adequately in relation to the income, and that gives Parliament quite a good influence in principle over the way in which the scheme is developing in a way which would be much less so if there was not a Fund and this was all general budget expenditure."[ 43 ] 22.

Professor Alcock argued that, "as a form of taxation upon employees, National Insurance contributions have been considerably more regressive than income tax with liability starting at much lower rates of earnings and reaching a ceiling well below the higher tax band level for income tax."[ 44 ] Because liability for National Insurance is calculated on a full and final basis weekly or monthly, those on fluctuating or intermittent earnings can find themselves liable for contributions, even though their earnings over a year fall below the tax threshold. Yet the benefits they get in return may be minimal due to an inadequate total of contributions in the year. The Government has sought to overcome this problem by aligning the threshold for paying contributions to those for income tax. From April 2000, a 'primary threshold' (at £76 a week) has been introduced which has raised the earnings level at which employee contributions begin. This threshold will rise to the level of the personal tax allowance in April 2001. For the purposes of entitlement to benefits employees will be 'zero-rated' - that is, treated as though they had paid contributions on earnings from the previous contributions threshold, the Lower Earnings Limit. The Upper Earnings Limit is also being raised in two successive years above price inflation.

People earning above the Upper Earnings Limit pay proportionately less of their earnings in National Insurance contributions than those with earnings below the limit. The system devised by Beveridge 23. The contributory principle was central to William Beveridge's plan for a comprehensive social security system after the Second World War. He described his Plan for Social Security as: "first and foremost a plan of insurance - of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence levels, as of right and without means test, so that individuals may build freely upon it."[ 45 ] The quotation summarises the key features of Beveridge's plan. His overall concern was to prevent poverty through provision of a subsistence income, rather than the creation of a system which replaced wage levels. The idea was that flat rate benefits would provide a floor, on which the contributor could build.

Beveridge's view was that "the State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."[ 46 ] Contributory benefits were to be something better and more worth having than means-tested "national assistance", which he felt should be "less desirable than insurance benefits; otherwise the insured person gets nothing for their contributions."[ 47 ] Beveridge expected that national assistance would be a minor part of the social security system, necessary mainly during a period of transition to cater for older people who would not qualify for contributory retirement pension: "the scope of assistance will be narrowed from the beginning and will diminish throughout the transition period for pensions. The scheme of social insurance is designed of itself when in full operation to guarantee the income needed for subsistence in all normal cases."[ 48 ] 24. Beveridge's plan was never fully realised. Political pressures meant that, at the outset, the Government decided to pay out the full retirement pension, before the 20 years had elapsed which were needed for the National Insurance Fund to mature.[ 49 ] Benefits were paid out of contributions collected.

As a result, rather than acting as a funded insurance scheme as Beveridge intended, NI operated on a 'pay-as-you-go' basis with the cost of current benefits being born by current contributions paid.[ 50 ] From the start, benefit rates were also lower than the subsistence rates envisaged by Beveridge. In 1954 the Government accepted the recommendations of the Phillips Committee that it should abandon any long-term aim of raising retirement pensions to subsistence level on the ground that it would present an unduly heavy burden on the Exchequer.[ 51 ] As a result, National Insurance benefits have never achieved the comprehensive coverage envisaged by Beveridge, being supplemented in many cases by means-tested benefits and contingency-based benefits. Economic and social changes 25. Economic and social changes have also undermined the assumptions on which National Insurance was based. There have been substantial changes in the labour market.

As the DSS commented: "Generally speaking, the National Insurance system was geared to a world in which men had full-time regular working patterns, with only brief spells out of work, and the overwhelming majority of women did not take paid employment, but were expected to rely on pensions built up on their husbands's contributions."[ 52 ] Today that world has gone. Full-time, largely male, jobs in large scale manufacturing have been replaced with more 'flexible', often part-time, jobs primarily in new service industries, employing many women. In the 1950s, just over half of all jobs were in manufacturing, compared to around one in five today. In the 1950s less than five per cent of workers worked part-time; today part-time workers account for 25 per cent of the workforce.

Self-employment has also increased, from 8 per cent in 1978 to 12 per cent recently.[ 53 ] Professor Alcock pointed out that the decline in manufacturing had been a major cause of the massive increase in unemployment in Britain which put enormous pressure on the National Insurance scheme.[ 54 ] The result of these changes has been that more and more people are failing to qualify for National Insurance benefits, due to unemployment, intermittent work records, or low pay. 26. The growth in part-time, often low-paid, employment has focussed attention on the exclusion from National Insurance protection of workers who earn below the Lower Earnings Limit (currently £67 a week). There are currently around 2.45 million workers earning below the Lower Earnings Limit. The Low Pay Unit pointed out that developments in the labour market mean this figure is likely to remain, if not increase.[ 55 ] Four out of five of those earning below the Lower Earnings Limit are women and this kind of low paid work is much more likely to be long term for them than for men.

Ninety-five per cent of women earning below the Lower Earnings Limit are part-time workers, the majority over 25 and with young children.[ 56 ] 27. Beveridge's National Insurance scheme assumed that women out of the labour market and caring for children would be supported by their husbands. In fact, the last three decades have seen a rise in separation and divorce and a growth in the number of parents bringing up children alone. Many of these lone parents do not qualify for National Insurance benefits, and have therefore been dependent on means-tested benefits. DSS expenditure on Supplementary Benefit and its successor Income Support grew from £1 billion in 1980-81 to £4 billion in 1998-99.[ 57 ] 28. Disability Alliance drew attention to the fact that "over the last 20-30 years the whole pattern of life for disabled people has changed as the old institutions and psychiatric hospitals have closed down and disabled people have moved to independent living in the community. [There are now] longer life expectancies and better survival rates for people with severe disabilities."[ 58 ] Many of such people have, at best, limited work records.

The increasingly competitive labour market also meant that people in poor health found it difficult to enter the market.[ 59 ] Invalidity Benefit caseloads grew steadily until 1995 reaching 1.8 million, due mainly to people remaining on benefits longer, rather than a higher number of new claims.[ 60 ] These changes increased the need for carers, many of whom found their own ability to work and pay National Insurance contributions reduced as a result. The lack of an insurance benefit specifically for carers means that even those who have previously worked and paid contributions do not qualify for National Insurance help. 29. Finally, an aging population has put pressure on pensions. The Secretary of State reminded us that: "[Beveridge] wrote his report at a time when the average life expectancy of a man after retirement was one year.[ 61 ] People are now living for 20 or 30 years in retirement."[ 62 ] Government policies towards National Insurance 30. The policies of successive governments since Beveridge have also had a substantial effect on the structure and coverage of the National Insurance scheme.

The changes can be characterised as an expansion of the system during the 1960s and 1970s, followed by contraction in the 1980s and 1990s. During the 1960s and 1970s, the limits of flat rate benefits were recognised by the gradual introduction of earnings-related benefits into both short-term benefits, and most importantly, long-term benefits through the establishment of the State Earnings Related Pension scheme (SERPS). The plight of carers was recognised in two ways. Home Responsibilities protection made it easier for people with caring responsibilities to qualify for Retirement Pension, and, in 1975, a non contributory, non means-tested benefit, Invalid Care Allowance, was introduced. The 1970s also saw the development of the system of credits, bringing more people into the National Insurance scheme without monetary contributions. A number of other non-contributory, non means-tested benefits were also introduced in the 1970s, aimed at people with long-term illness or disabilities with poor or non-existent contribution records.

Non-contributory Invalidity Benefit (which ultimately became Severe Disablement Allowance) was an earnings-replacement benefit aimed at people unable to work and ineligible for contribution-based Invalidity Benefit (which later became Incapacity Benefit) due to a lack of contributions. Disabled people with care and mobility needs were offered Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance. 31. However, from 1980 onwards, the National Insurance system was cut back. Mr Field observed, "Recently, there has been much talk about modernising welfare to take account of the changes in family composition and labour markets. In fact, most of the changes affecting welfare in the last twenty years have been government cuts, not societal changes." The 1980 Social Security (No.

2) Act reduced children's allowances paid with benefits (later abolished completely); removed the earnings link for the uprating of pensions; abolished earnings-related supplements on short-term benefits; and introduced an abatement of Unemployment Benefit to take account of occupational pensions.[ 63 ] Other changes during the same decade included substantial reductions in the value of SERPS, the transfer of payment of Sickness Benefit and Maternity Allowance to employers (with reimbursement from the State, later reduced and eventually largely discontinued in the case of Statutory Sick Pay); and a series of measures to tighten eligibility for and reduce entitlement to, Unemployment Benefit. Two major reductions in contributory benefits took place in the mid-1990s. In 1995, Invalidity Benefit was replaced with Incapacity Benefit, which tightened the medical test for eligibility whilst cutting the age-related additional allowance for most claimants; abolishing the earnings-related supplement; and making the benefit taxable.[ 64 ] In 1996, Unemployment Benefit, paid for 12 months, was replaced with Jobseeker's Allowance, payable for only 6 months. 32.

Our survey of the history of National Insurance since Beveridge has led us to conclude that the National Insurance scheme has been undermined, both directly as a result of successive governments' policies and indirectly as a result of economic and social change. National Insurance: the current debate 33. Many of the contributors to this inquiry were agreed that the National Insurance scheme is in serious trouble. Professor Ruth Lister commented, "On current trends... the future for the contributory principle and for the social insurance scheme in the UK must look bleak."[ 65 ] Growing numbers are excluded from National Insurance, and, while benefits have reduced significantly in value, National Insurance contribution rates have risen from 6.5 per cent in 1979 to ten per cent today. Mr Field warned of the potential for resentment among people who contribute, when greater rewards go to those who do not: " there is an inherent instability in a system which is asking people to contribute and then actually rewarding people, who do not contribute or cannot contribute, with more money than those who have contributed, and you can only get away with that in a world where the electorate is either very trusting or not very concerned."[ 66 ] 34.

Far from withering away as Beveridge had intended, means-tested benefits now represent a large and growing proportion of benefit expenditure. At the start of the post-war welfare state, just over 60 per cent of social security expenditure went on contributory benefits; and 13 per cent went on means-tested benefits.[ 67 ] Today, contributory benefits make up around 47 per cent of spending, and means-tested benefits have grown to 33 per cent of the total.[ 68 ] The considerable growth in means-tested benefits is due partly to the failure of increasing numbers of people to qualify for National Insurance benefits at all, and also the necessity for many of those who do qualify, to claim means-tested benefits to 'top-up' the low level of their contributory benefit to give them a basic amount to live on. It is also due to the gradual introduction, since the late 1960s, of new means-tested benefits. Rate rebates were introduced in 1967 and rent rebates in 1972.

Rent deregulation and higher council tax levels caused rapid increases in (renamed) Housing and Council Tax Benefits, which contributed to an additional £10 billion on these two benefits between 1980-81 and 1998-99.[ 69 ] Family Income Supplement (later re-named Family Credit) was introduced in 1971 as a means-tested top-up for families in low-paid employment. Between 1979 and 1999, the proportion of benefits which families received which were means-tested rose from 19 per cent to 52 per cent. 35. There are conflicting signals regarding the present Government's attitude towards National Insurance. On the one hand, a series of measures has eroded the contributory system still further, reducing both access to benefits and the amounts payable. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 tightened the eligibility conditions for Incapacity Benefit, and introduced an abatement of Incapacity Benefit to take account of occupational pensions - effectively introducing a means-tested element. Widows' Pension, including a SERPS element for older widows, was payable to widows aged 45 and over without dependants.

It was abolished and replaced by Bereavement Allowance, paid for six months to both widows and widowers, without a SERPS component. 36. On the other hand, the Government has sought to reform the structure of National Insurance contributions in a way which reduces the financial burden on low-paid workers, whilst ensuring that they continue to qualify for contributory benefits.[ 70 ] Coupled with the raising of the Upper Earnings Limit in two successive years by more than price inflation, the system is now less regressive in its effects. The Chancellor has also brought into the contributory system an estimated 16,000 women who earn over £30 per week but less than the Lower Earnings Limit, who will have access to contributory Maternity Allowance. A further 11,000 women who are self-employed, will also benefit from enhanced access to Maternity Allowance. 37. Professor Lister's pessimistic conclusion was that, "Although there is not a completely consistent pattern emerging from the individual benefit reviews, on balance the net effect is likely to be a further diminution of the role played by contributory benefits in the social security system."[ 71 ] 38.

The Secretary of State for Social Security has argued, "Today the important difference in social security is not whether they are insurance based or means tested, but whether or not they provide enough help to get people back to work and improve their lives."[ 72 ] The question we sought to answer was: is the contributory principle and the benefits to which it gives rise worth fighting for? Do the values which underpin National Insurance stand up against current social, political and economic realities?

Question: Who compiled the significant 1942 report 'Social Insurance and Allied Services'?
Answer: SIR WILLIAM BEVERIDGE