Labour must go for contributory welfare, not more means testing

June 4, 2013 5:30 pm

£100 million may not be an awful lot of money in the scheme of things – around 0.05% of the welfare budget – but Ed Balls’ announcement yesterday that Labour would means-test the winter fuel allowance was an important political moment.

First the good news. Putting pensioners’ benefits up for discussion is a positive step. David Cameron was wrong to promise to protect them all, regardless of circumstances, at the last election and Gordon Brown was wrong to back Cameron into a corner in the live debates. Pensioner benefits account for around 40% of all welfare spending, so protecting them has put huge pressure on the working age welfare budget to bear the burden of austerity.

The bad news is there are problems with means testing both in principle and in practice. In principle, we should aim for a welfare system that helps people in need, but also encourages honesty and rewards work and saving. This is what Maurice Glasman calls ‘incentives to virtue’. Means testing tends to do the opposite of these things and is unpopular as a result.

In practice means testing complicates the system and requires more bureaucracy to check exactly who is entitled to what. All for just £100 million. The real reason pensioner benefits are so expensive is that we are all living longer. So the question we should be asking is whether it is right that people can claim the winter fuel allowance as early as age 62, not whether means testing could save a small fraction of the overall spend.

More generally, Labour needs to get its story straight on welfare. What is the big idea? Focusing scarce resources on the most needy, as yesterday’s announcement suggests, or strengthening ‘the old principle of contribution’ as Liam Byrne promised not so long ago? Labour would do well to focus more the second of these two approaches, especially if it wishes to restore the public’s faith in working age welfare. The international evidence shows that the most generous welfare states are also those with stronger contributory elements.

This week Demos publishes proposals on how to do this. The government could create a two-tier system, with higher benefits for those with strong work records – around £95 per week job seekers allowance, compared to the £71.70 that everyone gets at the moment, regardless of their employment record. This would be paid for by cutting spending on Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI). SMI is a benefit specifically for homeowners: it covers the interest on up to £200,000 of loans or mortgages when people are out of work.

There is a principle behind this proposal: taking on a mortgage is a choice – and people should take responsibility for insuring themselves against the risks associated with that choice. To that end, people should be automatically enrolled into mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI), providing those customers with the chance to opt out of such insurance. This would mean that anyone not insured against their mortgage interest costs would have actively made that choice. All others would be insured at a maximum cost of around £33 per month, less than the average phone bill.

Making these changes would help Labour reclaim the mantle of personal responsibility, with homeowners insuring themselves against risks incurred by their own choices. It would encourage greater social solidarity, by reassuring people that those who have contributed to the welfare system will get the most out of it. And it would not cost a penny more than the current approach.

On Thursday Ed Miliband will make the second big Labour speech of the week, focusing on welfare. Here’s hoping the contributory principle is at the heart of it.

Duncan O’Leary is Deputy Director of Demos 

  • AlanGiles

    ” This is what Maurice Glasman calls ‘incentives to virtue’”

    Thats fine – just as long as their Lordships MacKenzie and Cunningham, and MPs become as virtuous as the people they lecture.

  • i_bid

    So home-ownership is a ‘choice’ and not a right now, and do these proposals include regulating our exploitative and unaffordable renting sector? What do these ‘strong work records’ mean? Living in an area that has been hit hard firstly by de-industrialisation, and now public sector job losses, whilst starved of investment caused by an absurdly distorted economy towards the London South East – it sounds remarkably like heartland Labour territory like this would be punished under these proposals ignoring the scarcity of jobs through no fault of our own.

  • Monkey_Bach

    Whenever anybody is needed to invent a scheme, scam, or ruse to enable Labour to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory Liam Byrne and/or DEMOS are always willing step forward and oblige.

    Eeek.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    So homeowners have to insure themselves but what about those renting?

    Your argument seems to be that people who buy have a responsibility to insure themselves against homelessness but those who rent should be insured by the state through the housing benefit. system. Why the inconsistency?

    There’s no logic or reason to it, why should the state favour tenants over owners, in effect providing a subsidy to the rental sector?

    What the state ought to do is provide the same level of support regardless of housing type, the owner can use it to pay their mortgage interest, the renter can put it to their rent. Fair and equal treatment of both.

  • Mike Homfray

    I’m not sure if it would be possible at the moment. The reason brown rejected Frank Field’s relatively modest ideas based on contribution in 97 was the sheer cost of establishing the initial level playing field which has to exist to make it at all fair.

    Means testing has many built in problems but I don’t see a very easy escape from it

Latest

  • Comment Labour’s Lessons from a Sikh Wedding Season

    Labour’s Lessons from a Sikh Wedding Season

    There’s been a fair bit written about the Sikh community in the nationals in the last few days in relation to Cameron’s political appointments to the Lords and some criticism for Labour for not having any representation from the 700,000 strong Sikh community in its Westminster ranks. Personally I don’t think there’s anything to gain in attacking Cameron for making more diverse appointments, even if the guy may not be as entrenched in the Sikh community as was claimed and […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Where does Labour really stand on a “Health Tax”?

    Where does Labour really stand on a “Health Tax”?

    The front page of today’s FT suggests that the Labour leadership is considering a “Health Tax” as a means of paying for the NHS, reporting(£): “Ed Miliband is to put the NHS at the centre of Labour’s election campaign and is considering an earmarked “health tax” or exempting the health service from deficit reduction to prove that he can deliver a better service. Mr Miliband believes the NHS is rising up the list of voters’ concerns but wants to offer […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Miliband calls for “overarching inquiry into child abuse” – and repeats call for Shaun Wright to step down

    Miliband calls for “overarching inquiry into child abuse” – and repeats call for Shaun Wright to step down

    Ed Miliband has released a statement this morning on the Rotherham child abuse scandal, in which he re-iterates calls for Shaun Wright to resign as South Yorkshire PCC. However, Miliband has gone further today, calling for an “overarching inquiry into child abuse” to examine what went wrong not just in Rotherham, but “in different institutions, in different parts of the country and stretching across different decades”. Here’s the statement in full: This week’s report into the child abuse scandal in […]

    Read more →
  • Comment If a young person’s opinion falls into the political sphere, does it make a sound?

    If a young person’s opinion falls into the political sphere, does it make a sound?

    There’s a lot of talk around the Party at the moment about ‘Generation Y.’ I suppose I fit into that category, although I don’t think I’ve ever used it to describe myself. Gen Y or whatever, what’s become clear to me over the years is that I’m one of the weirder ones. I’ve worked since the age of 16, doing jobs from working behind a pharmacy counter to fundraising in a call centre to translating for a construction company. I’ve […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why rural areas need free buses

    Why rural areas need free buses

    To have a fully functioning society, bus services in rural areas should be free of charge. For young people seeking employment, education or entertainment, the unwell needing to visit and be visited in hospitals or the elderly wanting to break the loneliness of isolation, public transport is essential. If governments don’t want to spend money on services in rural areas, they should at least provide the means for people who live there to get to them in urban areas. Regular […]

    Read more →