2 The Beveridge Report and the postwar reforms

1 2 The Beveridge Report and the postwar reformsIn 1941, the government appointed Sir William Beveridge to head aninquiry into Social Insurance and Allied Services. The Report of theinquiry was published in 1942 and formed the basis of decisions onpost war evidence to the Beveridge inquiryThe evidence submitted to the Beveridge inquiry was prepared in aperiod of low unemployment. However, there was an awareness thatthis was due to the demands of war and an uneasiness about the future,once the war was over. Some organisations laid stress on theimportance of planning for full employment. The National Councilof Women of Great Britain, for example, called for:A planned economy which will eliminate mass re-organisation of industry is properly outside the scope of thisinquiry, but it is a sine qua non of social and economic security.

2 Itis felt that this point cannot be over emphasised; any social securityplans for the future must, if they are to succeed at all, be based ona state of society in which there is possibility of work for all, andat an adequate proposals of Political and Economic Planning (PEP) were alsobased on the assumption of economic planning for somethingapproximating to full employment .3An important factor influencing the shape of the recommendationsmade, was the knowledge of the successful rehabilitation ofUnemployment Insurance following its reorganisation under the UISC after 1935.

3 Proposals for a contribution based insurance scheme forunemployment were common to all those who gave evidence on this21point and little or no doubt was expressed about the ability of this typeof provision to operate efficiently. Indeed, some wanted to extend itscoverage to include all working under contract of service. The LiberalParliamentary Party also wanted to bring in groups such asshopkeepers, farmers, nurses and others not under contract of sought the greater inclusion of part time workers the FabianSociety, for questions then were, how long insurance cover should last,what should happen to the long term unemployed and on whatconditions and at what level should benefit be paid.

4 On the issue ofthe duration of benefit, the division of opinion was not entirelypredictable. The TUC, the Liberal Parliamentary Party and the FabianSociety favoured a benefit of indefinite duration,6 while the NationalLabour Organisation, PEP and the National Council of Womenproposed a six month duration for the insurance benefit, followed bymeans tested assistance the Fabian Society, an insurance-cum-assistance type ofscheme was outmoded. Its own proposals, it said were aimed:at providing sufficient maintenance for those who temporarily orpermanently lose their earning power that is the simple servicewhich a community owes to its the citizen had a profound reciprocal obligation to co-operatefully in the restoration of his earning power.

5 Full cash maintenancewould be provided by society but only to the extent to which itsmembers are willing to accept their corresponding socialobligations .9 The Fabians, therefore, sought a flat rate benefit of indefiniteduration, at a level adequate to cover reasonable needs and without ameans test. In addition the actual rent of the individual would be paid. This would give the worker real security against the economic effectof these contingencies. He would know that his rent was covered andhe would have enough to live on. He would also have the assurancethat the resources of society would be directed to the restoration of hisearning power.

6 10 Sanctions (unspecified) would have to be appliedto the slacker who refused to co-operate with placement or National Labour Organisation, on the other hand, wanted tosee the Insurance Fund operated as a sound insurance scheme . Itappeared to assume that this required a limited duration of benefit andVictims or Villains?22the maintenance of an Assistance scheme. Payment of benefit shouldbe conditional on attendance at a Ministry of Labour training centreand on being capable of undertaking and willing to undertake suitablework, and of taking reasonable steps to obtain employment . Failingthis a six weeks suspension from benefit would be there was a desire to provide at least a subsistence levelof insurance benefit, which would not require means testedsupplementation.

7 The National Labour Organisation suggested thatthe present scale of benefit was only adequate on the assumption thatwage-earners are able to make substantial savings while at work .12 This was not the case. Nevertheless, it had to be recognised that thelevel of benefit would have to be set in relation to the level ofcontribution which would be publicly acceptable. For others givingevidence, the object of limiting the benefit level was to maintain amargin between benefit and wages. The British Employers Confederation emphasised this and so did the Shipping Federation andthe Liverpool Steam Ship Owners The aim would beto provide the individual with a strong incentive to return to work assoon as he can, and at the same time discourage the dependence of thework shy and encourage thrift and for training for the unemployed were quite common either as a means of dealing with the work shy or more positively tocombat the demoralisation of long periods out of work and to help theindividual to find employment.

8 The TUC also proposed a scheme oftransfer allowances (for lodgings, removals, etc.) to make it possiblefor people to move when an industry closed down,14 and the NationalCouncil of Women wanted to see the use of Assistance payments, overand above maintenance for any form of assistance which might beconsidered to have a constructive aim .15 The views of BeveridgeBeveridge had a long history of involvement in the issue ofunemployment and the development of social insurance dating backto the early years of the century16 and more recently as chairman ofthe Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee (UISC).

9 Hisbiographer (Jose Harris) suggests that it was his period at the UISC which convinced him of the popularity of the contributory principleamong working people and taught him to understand the impact ofunemployment on individuals and Beveridge Report and the postwar reforms23 Beveridge s proposal was for a scheme of social insurance againstall forms of interruption and destruction of earning power and forcertain special expenditure. The principal cash payments, includingthose for unemployment, would be without means test and would be paid from a Social Insurance Fund built up by contributions from theinsured persons, from their employers, if any, and from the State.

10 18It would be compulsory for all employed as well as self-employedpersons to pay contributions to the Fund. Beveridge argued that:benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances fromthe State is what the people of Britain desire. This desire is shownboth by the established popularity of compulsory insurance, andby the phenomenal growth of voluntary insurance .. It is shown inanother way by the strength of popular objection to any kind ofmeans reaction against means testing was not surprising it was partof the legacy of the bitter depression years and the detestation of theHousehold Means Test, even though this had been modified in was perhaps unexpected, in light of the way Beveridge had runthe UISC, was the proposal that, not only for old age and sickness ordisability, but also for unemployment, benefits should be paid as longas the need lasts.