Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:39:02.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supplementary Benefits: Dilemmas and Priorities*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

David Donnison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The statutory functions of the Supplementary Benefits Commission are described, together with the Secretary of State's invitation to the Commission to play a more active and public part in reformulating the problems of social assistance and proposing policies for dealing with them. Next the Commission's Chairman considers how he and his colleagues should respond to this invitation and which issues they should concentrate upon, focusing particularly on the growing use of discretion in a service originally intended to confer clearly understood rights, the bewildering complexity which results from this trend, and the ‘frontier’ problems arising between their service and other social services. In conclusion he considers the implications of the Commission's extended role for other bodies and the Commission's relations with them – particularly Ministers and their advisers, the academic community, the communications media, and the pressure groups. Ultimately, he asks, should the Commission itself be abolished?

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 337 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Student, 22 10 1924, p. 13.Google Scholar

2 See Hansard, 2 05 1975, Vol. 891, p. 262.Google Scholar

3 Ministry of Social Security Bill 1966, Explanatory Memorandum by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, Cmnd. 2997, London: HMSO, 05 1966.Google Scholar

4 The ‘bodies’ mentioned are the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, and the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.

5 Hansard, 24 05 1966, Cols. 339–40.Google Scholar

6 Hansard, 13 06 1966, col. 1069.Google Scholar

7 Memorandum of 22 January 1968.

8 Living together as husband and wife, Supplementary Benefits Administration Paper No. 5, London: HMSO 1976.Google Scholar

9 SirWalley, John, Social Security. Another British Failure?, London: Charles Knight, 1972, p. 116.Google Scholar

10 Headlines of November and December 1975 convey their witch-hunting message: ‘Jaguar Wally is Our Scrounger of the Week’ (News of the World); ‘Asian With £5,300 Social Benefits Asks For More’ (Daily Telegraph); ‘Security on £74 a Week’ (Sun); ‘How To Buy a New Car With State Cash’ (News of the World); ‘The Men Who Live On Your Pay’ (News of the World); ‘The Good Life of.….and his family on £67 dole’ (Sunday Express); ‘“Extravagant” Couple on State Aid burn up £491’ (Sunday Express).

11 Telex Report, BBC ‘lifeline’, 26 01 1976.Google Scholar

12 Bell, Kathleen, Collison, Peter, Turner, Stephen and Webber, Susan, ‘National Insurance Local Tribunals’, Parts I and II, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 3 Pt. 4, 1974 and Vol. 4 Pt. 1, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bell, Kathleen, Research Study on Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunals: Review of Main Findings; Conclusions; Recommendations, Department of Health and Social Security, London: HMSO, 1975.Google Scholar