DEBATE IN BRITAIN

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 100, 22 January 1943, Page 5

DEBATE IN BRITAIN

(By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Special Correspondent.) (Received January 21. 7 p.m.) LONDON, January 20.

Parliament will be a great centre of attraction when the Beveridge plan is debated. Meanwhile, the main arguments of its opponents have been that .social security will demoralize the people and prevent their being enterprising and adventurous. Mr. Beveridge, in a speech at. Plymouth, rounded on these critics, declaring that they were defeatists, and said “Adventure comes from those who are fed well enough to feel ambition, not from half-starved people.” lie asked, “How can one demoralize people by spending money on keeping them well or by making them lit. for work by rehabilitation, or by giving them the assurance that nt. the end of their lives they will have just enough money to live on without being a burden on their children?'' It. is interesting that Sir Robert Barclay, chairman of the District, Bank, is so far tlie only banker who supports' the Beveridge plan, lie says that the plan would not. really prove as heavy as might appear on the surface, since to a large extent the nation is already carrying the burden through the present, social services. He suggests that, it is a case of rationalizing the financial burden already existing. The “Manchester Guardian observed recently that “a tide of criticism, both reasoned and superstitious, is again rising against, the banks.’’ It. is not surprising. therefore, that at. annual meetings of the banks, the chairmen have been delivering broadsides against this criticism. Mr. Rupert Beckett, of the Westminster Bank, states that, nationalization of the banks would make the service neither cheaper nor more efficient, but would destroy its flexibility and thus damage trade. He declares that banking, is not a monopoly, but! a highly competitive business. Dealing with the resentment °hown to the banks by exalted clerics, he suggests that, their advocacy of nationalization springs “from political prejudice, incapable of coherent, explanation."