Below the Breadline: The Social Fund, Poverty and Social Work
| Date | 01 March 1988 |
| Published date | 01 March 1988 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058803500103 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Below the Breadline: The Social
Fund, Poverty and Social Work
John Hughes
Probation Officer, Birmingham
The Social Fund has excited more criticism in
were living on an income of 140% of
the social work press than any other issue
supplementary benefitlrvel or less 7. million of
concerning income maintenance during the last
these were on supplementary benefit with more
ten years. The casual reader might therefore
unemployed adults than pensioners.
concludethat apart fra~nthe anticipated effects of
Low wages are also a major cause of poverty;
this regressive piece of legislation, the poor have
part time jobs usually held by women now
been sde in Mrs Thatcher’s hands. Such >
account for almost 25 % of the total v~z~rkforce.
conclusion would be wrong. The numbers of
The 1983 poverty figures represent a ~2%
people in poverty are increasing, the living
increase on the 1979 figures. The government is
standards ofthepoor are at a lower level now than
considering redefining poverty before the 1985
at any time since the 1940’s and evidence is
figures are released unemployed figures have
gradually being collated to show the corrosive
already been redefined downwards twelve times.
effects of poverty in terms of disease, mental
Pegging Benefits to the Rate of Inflation
illness, suicide, stunted children and early death.
(except chilll Benefit an two occasions).
If all this is true, then current controversy
Between 1948 and 1979, excluding housing
about the Social Fund has as much to do with a
cost~~ benefit rates went up by more than double
perceived affront to the self image of social
the rate of inflation. This was not done out of
workers than any concern to better the lot of their
misplaced generosity; original national assist-
clients. The Social Fund can then be seen in
ance scales were
based on a 1936 breadline in-
perspective as another twist of the monetarist
creased by 17% less than the rate of inflation.
ratchet on the living standards of the weak and
RPIs are a poor measure of subsistance needs;
defenceless, and by no means potentially the
next
year, for example, electricity goes up by 8 %
most serious. We must already anticipate the
benefits by ~.1 % .
effects of the Poll Tax, cuts in benefits for the
under 25s, privatisation of the Water and
Swingeing Cuts in Available Benefits
Electricity Boards and the breaking up of already
According to House of Commons library
depleted council housing stocks.
figures, during 1979-86 ill.
billion was cut
from the Social Security budget and in 1986/87
Counting the Cost
alone cuts amounted...
To continue reading
Request your trial