History - "Between 1906-1914 the real causes of poverty were tackled successfully by government action". To what extent would you agree with this statement?
In the 1906 general election, the Liberal Party won by a landslide taking 377 seats compared to the Conservatories 157. Their manifesto consisted of Free Trade, Moderate Reform in South Africa and a Drinks Bill but there was no sign of a Social Welfare Programme. This is not surprising considering most of the decision makers in the 19th Century took on a "Laissez Faire" approach i.e. The government must not interfere with the lives of the people or the working market. Contemporaries believed that poverty was self-inflicted either by too much drinking, having too many children or by being too lazy to work. Booth and Rowntree's research made many people re-assess their view on this.
Booth revealed that the main causes of poverty were employment (unemployment, low wages and casual work), circumstance (large families, sickness and old age), habit (drink and thriftlessness). Rowntree using Booth's method as a stepping-stone for his own research, was able to build on these earlier findings in greater detail by categorising poverty i.e. Primary poverty and Secondary poverty. As well as the idea of a poverty cycle and from this was able to show that people would be in and out of poverty at certain stages of their life. Booth and Rowntree both revealed that about one third of Britain's people were living below breadline. This revelation and the need for national efficiency helped change peoples attitudes about the poor.
The Liberals began to tackle poverty by providing undernourished children free school meals, as many school children were too undernourished to concentrate on their lessons. This was called The Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906, which meant local authorities, although not compulsory, could provide meals for the needy free of charge. The council could pay for this by collecting a rate from the rich. The importance of this is that children would be better educated and possess better job prospects in the future. It would also mean that the parents could serve up a lighter meal in the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The Liberals began to tackle poverty by providing undernourished children free school meals, as many school children were too undernourished to concentrate on their lessons. This was called The Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906, which meant local authorities, although not compulsory, could provide meals for the needy free of charge. The council could pay for this by collecting a rate from the rich. The importance of this is that children would be better educated and possess better job prospects in the future. It would also mean that the parents could serve up a lighter meal in the evening, saving money on food and it was free from the stigma associated with the poor law. However, as it was not compulsory many schools did not participate. By 1912, there were 322 schools in England and Wales but only 131 introduced the service. It also relied heavily on voluntary contributions.
The following year, in 1907, the Liberals brought in the Medical Inspection of Children in School Act. It allowed for free yearly medical inspections in elementary schools in England and Wales and uncovered high the levels of ill health. An advantage of this was that it allowed illness to be diagnosed early and if treated would wipe out most common diseases. In return would produce healthier adults. A disadvantage of it was that it did not cover the cost of treatment so many parents either would ignore the advice or would put the family into secondary poverty paying for it.
Another major cause of poverty was becoming elderly and in 1908, the Liberals attempted to deal with the problem by introducing the Old Age Pension Act. This was a non-contributory payment for people over seventy years old. The amount paid to an individual would be 5/- per week, a couple would be paid 7/6d per week. This was means tested and to be eligible the person would need to have an annual income of £21.00 or less. Anyone above that income would have his or her payment reduced until income reached £31.00 and then payment would be nil. A person could be refused a pension if they have been convicted of a crime in the last 20 years, recently claimed indoor relief or if they had never worked. The usefulness of this would be considerable to families with elderly relatives because it would allow them to be looked after at home rather than put in the workhouse. Nevertheless, the payment was below the poverty line and according to Booth a manual worker, lost hold on full-time employment between the ages of 45-50, therefore the age of seventy seems too late.
Once the elderly had been dealt with, another issue tackled was unemployment. In 1909, they introduced the Labour Exchange Act. Labour Exchange buildings, financed by the Treasury, were set up in every district. The unemployed would go there to register for work and to view any vacancies that employers were advertising. The benefits of this were that over 2 million unemployed registered and over 3000 vacancies were filled every day. The drawbacks were that it did not actually create jobs and three out of four people did not get work.
Next on the Liberals agenda was dealing with the sick, another major cause of poverty. In 1911, they brought in the National Insurance Act. This was passed in two parts with part one covering sickness. It gave people the right to free medical care and sick pay. It was compulsory for manual workers who earned less than £160 annually to join the scheme. It required male worker's to pay 4d per week, the employer 3d and the government contributed 2d hence, Lloyd George's slogan "9d for 4d." The contribution for females was 3d per week. If a person earned more that £160 they could still join the scheme but they would have to pay the employers contribution as well as their own. The sickness benefit would be paid for 26 weeks at a rate of 10/- pw for 13 weeks and 5/-pw for the remainder. Woman would receive 7/6- and 3/-. In addition to this woman would receive 30/- on giving birth. The positive aspects of this act were that the payment was above the poverty line for an individual, this was the first time the government recognized that having a child was expensive. The Negative aspects were that the payment was below the poverty line for a family, cover was only for the insured and by paying for this a family could be put in secondary poverty.
Part 2 of the National Insurance Act 1911 was aimed at giving the workers cover during times of unemployment. It was only open to workers in the seven trades known for high risk unemployment e.g construction, shipbuilding, sawmilling etc. Workers paid 2 1/2d per week from their wages and the employer matched this. The employer would stick a 5d insurance stamp to the workers unemployment book. After at least 26 weeks of paying into the scheme, the worker was entitled to 15 weeks unemployment benefit at 7/- per week. In order to claim the worker had to sign the unemployment register at a Labour
exchange on a daily basis to prove he was fit to work. This was significant because it was separate from the poor law and a step away from a Laissez faire society. It provided a safety net for the workers in the seven industries. It was the amount for subsistence for a single person. On the other hand, it was only separate from the poor law for 15 weeks out of the year. The amount was below the 21/- needed for a family. It did not cover enough of the workforce, as it was limited to the seven trades. This also meant very few woman had cover.
To sum up the Liberals introduced school meals, medical inspections, old age pension, Labour exchanges, sickness and unemployment insurance. They did not look at areas such as improving housing to ease the poverty linked to slum housing or the standard of education, as a better education would have given the people a greater chance of pulling themselves out of poverty. Although the workers could claim free medical treatment from a GP, it did not include hospital treatment nor did the services extend to family members. For many people the poor law remained the main agency for dealing with poverty. These measures were certainly a step away from a laissez-faire approach but far from adequately tackling the real causes of poverty.
Page 1 of 3
