APPENDIX 24
Further memorandum from Joan Brown (CP
34)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
AND INCLUSIVENESS
(NB: a brief note written two weeks after a
triple by-pass and so limited in scope and content).
Since giving my paper at the last JRF seminar
I have been reading arguments that unless National Insurance can
be made all-inclusive, it ought to be abandoned in favour of a
scheme which can cover all groups and contingencies. I'm not sure
that such a scheme could be feasible, but the nearest might be
a taxed-based citizen's rights scheme. Such schemes have been
operating in Nordic countries, but are much under question there.
I doubt if they are the way for us. Alternatively means testing/tax
credits are suggested to ensure cover for the poor. I have already
argued against these as the principal provision on ground of divisiveness
and for National Insurance for its mutual responsibility, solidarity
and ability to contribute to social cohesion.
My paper, therefore, argued for the choice of
National Insurance as the central scheme to cover the majority
of the population, for modernising its underpinning assumptions
and then adopting policies which maximised its inclusiveness,
rather than—as we have had for several decades—policies
which sought to exclude.
Emphasis on contributions through work fits
with current policies emphasising reduced unemployment, greater
access for disadvantaged groups to paid work and welfare policies
emphasising "work for those who can". Alongside this
there is already a readiness to recognise important social roles
such as child rearing and caring for disabled/inform adults as
a form of contribution. This clearly needs to be pursued. I made
other suggestions to increase inclusiveness which I do not believe
are at odds with reasonable social goals. All of this would need
to be kept up to date.
But my original paper did not deal with the
other side of the coin—what happens to those who still cannot
be included in National Insurance or who have been left behind?
I do not think this is a question that ought
be answered as a side issue arising from a discussion of National
Insurance (by JRF or by the Social Security Committee). I would
argue that first we need to establish a clear route for a thoroughgoing
reform and modernisation of National Insurance, as the main social
security scheme and, before that is set in stone, initiate
a major debate on the needs of those who, short term or long term,
cannot be included.
We will need to:
— identify the different groups who
will be left out;
— examine their needs and the best
possible type of schemes (plural) to meet these with dignity;
— plan clear routes into National Insurance
wherever possible for those whose exclusion ought only to be temporary;
— at all times avoid policies—still
too common—that say "oh well, they can always claim
Income Support". We ought not to be adding in an often careless
way to excluded groups.
The point I am labouring is that we need as
major a debate about groups outside the central scheme as those
easily brought in. They should be treated as people of equal importance—not
just the leftovers.
Joan Brown
1 November 1999
| 
