44. Does the social system provide a comprehensive service for the needy in Britain.
State (or public) sector provision for social security, health care, personal social services and council (or social) housing are very much taken for granted by many Britons today. They also feature prominently in lists of people's concerns and directly the daily lives of individuals of all ages. But it wasn't until the 1940s that the state accepted overall responsibility for providing basic social help for all citizens. Previously, there had been few such facilities and it was felt that the state was not obliged to supply them. British social services developed considerably from the mid-twentieth century as society and government policies changed. Reflecting this historical context, they are now divided between state (public) and private sectors.
The state provides services and benefits for the sick, retired, disabled, elderly, needy and unemployed. They are organized by devolved and local authorities throughout Britain under the central direction of the UK Department of Health and the Department of Work and Pensions. The costs of this system are funded mainly by general taxation and partly by a National Insurance Fund to which employers contribute. This means that although many social services, such as health care, are provided free at the point of need, most people will have contributed to them during their working lives through income tax and National Insurance contributions.
In the private sector, social and health services are financed by personal insurance schemes, company occupational plans and by those people who choose to pay for such facilities out of their own income or capital. But most of these people are eligible for public sector care if they wish. There are also many long-established voluntary organizations which continue the tradition of charitable help for the needy and largely depend for their funding upon donations from the public.
Conservative governments (1979-97) introduced reforms in the state sector in order to reduce expenditure, eradicated fraud, improve efficiency, encourage more self-provision and target benefits to those most genuinely in need. Such policies were widely attacked and it was argued that they were based on a market orientation and a return to the old mentality of personal responsibility for social needs.
The Labour government since 1997 has also tried to reform the very expensive welfare state by encouraging people to insure themselves against unemployment and sickness and to provide for their own pensions and care in old age. It has introduced reforms to help families, reduce poverty and exclusion, and made efforts to return the unemployed to work. But it has had to increase public spending in these areas (such as the National Health Service) in order to prevent their decay and possible collapse.
These developments suggest that the state in future may be unable (or unwilling) to meet the financial costs of public social services without increases in personal income tax or alternative funding schemes. People are consequently being encouraged to build their own welfare plans and government's role in the future may lie in directing aid rather than its funding and provision. This shows the difficulty of reconciling public services demand with a `free market economy' and of deciding how much dependence there should be upon the state. The Labour government also intends to involve the private sector more in the provision and management of the public services. But there is public and trade union opposition to this policy, which is generally perceived as the privatization of `free' social services.
The provision of contemporary social services, in both public and private sectors, is conditioned by changes in family structures, demographic factors (such as birth rates and increases in life expectancy), governmental responses to social needs and the availability and costs of services.
The picture that emerges from statistics (2003) is one of smaller families; more people living alone; an increase in one-parent and non-marital births; high divorce rates; more people living longer and contributing to an ageing population; more working mothers and wives; more cohabiting couples (żyjący na kocią łapę); and a decline in marriage. These features influence the contemporary state and private provisions for social security, health, social services and housing.
The social security gives benefits to workers who pay contributions to the National Insurance Fund and income tax system; income-related benefits to people who have no income or whose income falls below certain levels; and other benefits that are conditional on disability or family needs. The contributory system gives, for example, state retirement pensions for women at 60 and men at 65 (to be equalized at 65 for both sexes from 2010); maternity pay for pregnant working women; sick pay or incapacity benefit for people who are absent from works because of sickness disability allowances for people who become incapable of work; and allowances to widowed mothers. The former unemployment benefit has become a Jobseeker's Allowance, which is dependent upon people actively seeking work. Icome0related benefits are also provided by the state.
Income Support depends upon savings and capital and is given to some 5.6 million people in great financial need, such as one-parent families, the elderly and long-term sick or disabled. This benefit covers basic living requirements, although the sums involved are relatively low. It also includes free prescription drugs, dental treatment, opticians' services and children's school meals. Family Credit is a benefit whereby families with children and at least one parent in work receive an additional sum to their low wages, which includes the same extra benefits as Income Support. Housing benefit is paid to people on Income Support and other low-income claimants and covers the cost of ranted accommodation. A tax-free Child Benefit (£10 per week for the eldest child and £8 for each other child) is paid to all mothers for each of her children up to age of 18, irrespective of family income.
Recent (2003) opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of British people feel concern about and dissatisfaction with the public social services in general (with National Health Service near the top of a list of worries). But state pensions, social security and public housing had also climbed up the list. A problem with these views is whether they accurately portray the reality of the social services, since the personal experience of many other individuals in their dealing with the system are positive. Respondents to polls fell that there should be greater public spending on the NHS and medical resources (such as more doctors and nurses) and don't believe that there has been a great improvement in these areas despite increased funding by the Labour government since 2001.
Majority of British people support the idea of free public services funded by taxation.
source: British Civilization. Oakland
From the Internet:
One in three social services departments fails to provide adequate care because they are so badly managed, a report warns today. An annual review of local authorities shows 31 per cent need a radical overhaul to achieve adequate frontline services for children, the elderly and other vulnerable adults. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-services-failing-the-needy-631656.html);
Elderly and disabled people in England are increasingly being denied social services, a report says. The Commission for Social Care Inspection said councils were tightening their criteria which determines who is eligible for care. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7214709.stm);