To what extent can the Beveridge report be considered a ‘revolution’ in British social policy?

One of the particular harsh aspects of the granting of welfare was the means test, a legacy of the Victorian poor law, which meant that anyone seeking state assistance had to be subjected to an intrusive examination of all their household resources by a visiting enquiring official. In his revolutionary reforms Beveridge promised a fresh start, creating a nationalised scheme, which would end the means test and replace it with a flat-rate system of benefits for sickness, old age, widowed and the unemployed. There would also be the family allowances to help towards the costs of bringing up children.

Beveridge set out to attack and put an end to what he imaginatively called, the five giants of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. After years of war and rationing Britain had become mired in a world of state interventionism, the government had become involved and took responsibility in all areas. However, 'a kind of benevolent conspiracy emerged which recognised that the working class had to be offered a new deal if the war was to be won' (Fraser, 2003, p, 230). The evacuation of unkempt, ill-clothed, undernourished and often incontinent children from the inner cities during the bombing had taught many middle-class families about the realities and deprivation of life for the urban poor. Moreover, there was a universal desire to avoid the bitter experiences of the 1920s when the nation had promised a 'land fit for heroes' but had instead ended up with the depression and unemployment, during the hungry thirties.

The Beveridge Report, received an ecstatic reception, it was 'published in December 1942, and was an immediate bestseller, with total sales of some 650,000' (Fraser, 2003, p, 235). Beveridge always argued, 'that it was a typical British revolution drawing the best of the past into a new future' (Fraser, 2000 p, 68). The plan had managed to capture the very spirit of the age by promising a social policy that looked after future generations and granted a better quality of life and education for their children. It depended on 'a full employment policy, and the creation of a national health and rehabilitation service, assumptions that Beveridge built into his design for a comprehensive social security system' (Baldock, J. et al, 1999, p 22). The plan was based on the Keynesian macroeconomic theory developed by John Maynard Keynes that tried to address the problem of persistently high unemployment during the thirties. The theory reflected a particular philosophy towards government and the economy 'that a market based economy is unlikely to achieve the macroeconomic goals of full employment, growth and stability without the active use of government polices' (URL amosweb.com, 20/03/03).

Inevitably, there were criticisms from the Confederation of British Industry and the Tory Chancellor Kingsley Wood, who, thought that in the long-term the scheme would be unaffordable. Others criticised the report believing it was not well enough thought out, as collective money available in the pot could not possibly ensure his vision of assistance from the cradle to the grave. Yet, it could be argued that the Beveridge report and the subsequent introduction of the welfare state including the NHS has been the victim of its own success. We live in improved environments with better sanitation, nutrition and health care that insures we live longer, thus the life expectation of men and women has increased.

When the Labour Party won the landslide victory in 1945 the Beveridge report was implemented almost immediately. Old age pensions were introduced in full even though Beveridge himself argued that they would be too expensive and should be phased in over a twenty-year period. Since the initial euphoria of the plan and after nearly six decades, views have changed. Social scientists and historians have criticised the plan as 'flawed' saying it has 'failed to live up to its promises'.

One of the first criticisms was the poverty/inequality problem. Beveridge had looked at the rents of the unemployed and found that under the old system (poor laws) rents were usually paid in full. Under the new scheme he proposed that an average rent was paid, this meant that inevitably, some areas were 'better off' and some were 'inadequate' given the geographical areas. In later studies it was found that Beveridge himself set the subsistence levels too low and the level was eroded further due to wartime inflation. Secondly, a major flaw was found to be the principle of flat-rate contributions. This was the fundamental simplicity of the plan, the fact that a flat-rate contribution for a flat-rate benefit was the principle of contractual entitlement. The rate of contributions was determined by, what was affordable to the lowest wage earners in the country and as the plan was to be self-funding, this consequently limited the benefit levels that could be paid out. Thirdly, criticism centred on the belief that the plan sorted out the problems of the thirties but not of the post war years, as it was not suited to the diverse needs that developed in later decades. 'The report failed to include fiscal and occupational welfare and did not attempt to link benefit and taxation regimes' (Fraser, 2000, p, 74). Indeed, Sir Arnold Gridley wondered 'how want is to be defined - a thrifty family man could live on £3 a week, whereas a family man who spends his money on drink or gambling may need as much as £5 or £6 per week' (URL, sparticus, 17/02/2003).

Another criticism of the report was connected to the growth of feminism, an area that Beveridge tried hard to incorporate. According to a leading women's activist at the time, Beveridge had 'gone a long way towards establishing the rights of a married women as a worker and as a partner in the home' (Fraser, 2000, p, 74), but it was believed that seven out of eight married women would not work, therefore making it difficult to incorporate them into a contributory insurance scheme, insurance benefit was mainly derived through their husbands. 'The married woman was to be treated as befitted her legal status; as the dependent of a man and as entitled to economic support by him, both for herself and her children' (Wilson, 1977, p 150). Additionally, no provision for unsupported mothers was included in the scheme and subsequently most of these women were reliant on supplementary benefits. Therefore, the position of unsupported mothers was unchanged by the report, 'and they were essentially in the same position they were under the poor laws' (Wilson, 1977, p 152). Furthermore, Beveridge was concerned with the falling birth rate and therefore anxious to get working/service women back into the home. The family allowance, implemented by the coalition government in 1945, 'helped to restore the birth-rate by making it possible for parents who desire more children to bring them into the world without damaging the chances of those already born' (Wilson, 1977, p 151).

During the years 1944-1949, Beveridge's 'Five Giants' were tackled by legislation. The new Labour government 'moving from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, put the creation of an egalitarian social order at the top of the political agenda' (Jones, 1993, p 134). Firstly, want, in 1944 The Family Allowance Act was introduced giving an allowance of five shillings (25 pence) per week for every child under the age of 16, except the first. The national Insurance Act 1946, introduced a scheme providing payments by way of 'unemployment benefit sickness benefit, maternity benefit, retirement pension, widow's benefit, guardians allowance and death grant' (Jones, 1993, p 136). The second of the giants tackled was disease. The National Health Service Act 1946, laid down a commitment to the health of the nation, this Act became law in 1946 but due to new equipment and machinery requiring to be set up, and staffing problems to be overcome, the Act was not to become reality until July 5th 1948. The next of the five to be tackled was idleness. The Beveridge plan was based on the Keynesian analysis of full employment but the government considered high and stable employment achievable. During the post war years full employment was possible 'there was work for almost anyone who wanted it' (Jones, 1993, p 142). Ignorance, was confronted by the Education Act of 1944. 'Free education was to be provided all the way from the nursery level, through primary school, to three kinds of secondary school and beyond, to further and higher education' (Jones, 1993, p 144). Finally, another of the giants that Beveridge addressed was squalor. This was tackled by The Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. This Act enabled the setting up of Green Belts around towns, the betterment of slum areas, the re-planning of shopping centres, housing estates and new roads, to rebuild the towns and cities that had been so badly damaged by years of war damage and neglect. Also, 'new towns were to be built, with full provision for work, residential areas and community life to relieve the congestion on the cities' (Jones, 1993 p 147). Thus, tackling the five giants by legislation appears to have been revolutionary in terms of social endeavours.

In conclusion, this essay has explored and outlined the Beverage report. It has discussed the causes and looked at the consequences and considered to what extent the report was revolutionary to social policy in Britain. Certainly, the report can be considered a revolution in British social policy as it has had a lasting impact on social order through government legislation that has, and continues to have, sought to address the 'five giants'.