APPENDIX 25
Memorandum submitted by the Maternity
Alliance (SF 43)
MATERNITY EXPENSES FROM THE DISCRETIONARY
SOCIAL FUND
SUMMARY
The Maternity Alliance is an independent national
organisation which works to end inequality and promote the well-being
of pregnant women, new parents and their babies. We believe that
there is no justification for a system which permits applications
to the discretionary Social Fund for essential household equipment,
furniture and clothing for any qualifying person except a newborn
baby, for whom the consequences of inadequate clothing and equipment
may be far more serious than for other members of society. Parents
of newborn babies who lack essential items not covered by the
Sure Start Maternity Grant should have equal access to the discretionary
Fund.
1. The effect of the status quo on mothers
living in poverty
1.1 The Maternity Alliance Information Service
answers approximately 11,000 enquiries a year on maternity rights
and benefits. Only a small proportion of these concern the Social
Fund but the situation of the individual women concerned is usually
desperate. Those receiving means-tested benefits for a prolonged
period are often not able to budget adequately to buy the minimum
essentials to keep a new baby warm, dry and safe, particularly
as an estimated one in three pregnancies is unplanned. The Sure
Start Maternity Grant still leaves a significant shortfall in
meeting necessary expenses. The automatic denial of the chance
of an interest-free loan from the Social Fund puts these women
under extreme pressure.
1.2 Some may have family or friends from
whom they can borrow clothes and equipment or money to buy them,
but many do not. A joint Maternity Alliance/ health visitors survey
of mothers on low incomes found that one in six had been unable
to borrow clothes or equipment and had not received a single gift
for the baby.
1.3 There are very few sources of charitable
assistance to help pregnant women or new parents living in poverty
to buy necessities for the baby.
1.4 A significant number of pregnant women
living in poverty are therefore in a position where they have
no alternative but to borrow money to buy what is needed for the
baby. Evidence from calls to the Maternity Alliance Information
Service indicates that when denied access to the discretionary
Social Fund, they may instead borrow money from a "loan shark"
at exorbitant rates of interest.
1.5 Alternatively a pregnant woman dependent
on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance may try
to save up by cutting back on what is usually the only elastic
item in the household budget—her own food. The links between
inadequate maternal nutrition, babies born at low birthweight
and consequent lifelong health problems are well documented.
1.6 Examples of hardship caused by lack
of access to the discretionary Social Fund include:
— Ms A, aged 40, who did not find out
she was pregnant until the sixth month due to medical misdiagnosis.
She was living on Income Support and had no time to save up for
what she needed to buy. Her only option after being turned down
by the discretionary Social Fund was to go to a loan shark.
— Ms B, who was living on Income Support,
was lent a cot and other equipment by a friend. Shortly before
she was due to have the baby her friend unexpectedly asked for
everything back, leaving Ms B with no time to budget for baby
items, nor to shop around for second hand bargains.
— Ms C, a disabled mother, whose Sure
Start Maternity Grant did not cover the cost of suitably adapted
babycare equipment.
2. The contribution of the State
2.1 While there is no doubt that the Sure
Start Maternity Grant is greatly valued by those who receive it,
the expenses associated with the arrival of a new baby are much
higher than £300, particularly if it is a first baby. It
costs at least £570 to buy all the items considered necessary
by the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association
(CPHVA). The recent (and very welcome) increases in the Sure Start
Maternity Grant therefore mean that it now meets just over half
the cost of newborn essentials, still leaving a significant shortfall.
2.2 Changing the rules to permit access
to the discretionary Fund for items now classed as "maternity
expenses" would not lead to double provision, since by definition
a mother would only apply to the discretionary Fund for items
other than those she had bought with the Sure Start Maternity
Grant.
3. Cost implications
3.1 Ending the exclusion of loans and grants
for items classed "maternity expenses" would not involve
an increase in government expenditure, since the discretionary
Social Fund is cash limited. It may be presumed that any increase
in pressure on the Social Fund budget would be slight, because
there is no evidence of any significant decrease in pressure on
the budget since the guidance changed in 1995 to exclude these
items.
4. Impact of change
4.1 There are no statistics available on
how many applications for loans or grants for items classed as
maternity expenses were received or how many were successful prior
to the 1995 change in guidance. It is therefore difficult to estimate
how many people would be affected by a legislative change, but
it is clear that the positive impact on individual pregnant women
dependent on means-tested benefits with no other source of financial
help would be considerable. Over a quarter of babies are born
into families poor enough to qualify for the Sure Start Maternity
Grant.
4.2 On the other hand it must be recognised
that because the discretionary Fund operates within a fixed budget,
other applicants whose needs were deemed to be less urgent might
be disadvantaged by such a change. However, this would simply
create a level playing field between applications for essential
items for a baby and those for other essential items. It would
remain the responsibility of the relevant officials to determine
which individual applications were successful within the budgetary
constraints, taking account of the availability of the Sure Start
Maternity Grant.
5. Background
5.1 Loans and grants from the discretionary
Social Fund were available for items classed as "maternity
expenses" prior to August 1995 when the Social Fund Guidance
was changed to clarify that these items were excluded. The exclusion
was upheld when challenged by judicial review in 1997 (R v Social
Fund Inspectors ex parte Harper).
5.2 Department of Social Security evidence
to the Winterton Health Committee in 1991 described the discretionary
Social Fund as a safety net for the most vulnerable of socially
isolated mothers such as care leavers, who had no support from
family or friends and found the Maternity Payment (as it was then)
inadequate to meet their babies' needs. Under Secretary of State
Susan Maunsell told the committee that " (i)f a mother
had no other source of help there would be a possibility of a
loan or even of a community care grant from the social fund which
would be cash limited. " (Health Committee Second Report,
Maternity Services, Volume II, Minutes of Evidence, p457, para
1148).
5.3 It is this safety net that was removed
in 1995 and we believe that it is essential for the welfare of
the babies born to parents who do not have the resources to keep
them warm, dry and safe, that this safety net be restored.
Jenny McLeish
Social Policy Officer
6 February 2001
| 
