The Grey River Argus MONDAY, April 12, 1948. SOCIAL SECURITY

Grey River Argus, 12 April 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, April 12, 1948. SOCIAL SECURITY

rpHE visit to the Dominion of Britain’s social security planner. Lord Beveridge, will he for many a matter of more than purely personal interest. Such comparisons between his scheme and our own as he may draw during his stay ought to be important. For one thing, much greater com-

plexity characterises the large population for which he devised social security than that of this country, whose numbers, he notes, are equivalent only to those of cities which are not the largest in the Old Country. The connection as between employment and contribution has more definitely been preserved in the British scheme, although in either case collection is a responsibility of employerdom as regards wages. There is here also a greater degree of universality, while the medical benefits in Britain’s case have yet to be finalised. While he says that there remains no great difference between the Government and the medical profession, the distinction, however fine, is still fundamental. It may also be said that experience yet mustbe relied on to prove whether or not the doctors are right in their stand that they should have greater professional autonomy,

and that bureaucracy is liable to lower standards of the profession. Even in New Zealand the question is being raised as to whether people are not swallowing too much in the/way of medicine, or being automatically treated in some instances, and whether the results are quite as good as might be obtainable by sohie less costly procedure. It is to be noted that, just as the Dominion scheme began in circumstances of full employment, the Beveridge plan in July next will do likewise. The ultimate test might come in a variation of those conditions. That social security, however, must be available in some form or other under’ the traditional system of capitalism few to-day would be ready to deny, even in the ranks of those who profess the belief that competition is the economic anchor of capitalistic society. As regards the great majority, th? principle aims at ensuring a substitute for productive property, and in the nature of modern industrialism it appears to all classes at’ieast as a workable expedient. it may prove permanently adapted for the next phase of economics, which in the estimation of some authorities may prove to be the managerial State, where power may increasingly accrue to executive heads, and where technicians may exert an increasing influence. Such planning for recovery as Britain today exhibits, for instance, must place executives in a strong position . Lord Beveridge has so far committed himself only to one advisory remark in our regal’d—that the immigration policy ought to make more provision for the family. In this case he doubtless means the British family, but ,the suggestion in any case is an im-

portant one. Opinion is growing in Britain that there needs to be a large exodus. There is an evident willingness there on the Government’s part to co-operate in large scale emigration. But there at the same time is some labour shortage in several directions, and it hardly is to bfc expected that the idea of picking out onlv the most vigorous young hidults 'for the "Dominions would be welcomed. Such a course would, for one thing, tend to undermine the social security scheme by accelerating the rise in the age level, and reducing the proportion of people ■whose relation to the scheme is that of contributors rather than beneficaries. No doubt a larger proportion of elderly immigrants would have in this country a similar effect, though not relatively so great if their advent meant their being accompanied by families. To have their parents with them would be a benefit for juvenile immigrants, who otherwise might not be available at all. It may be inferred that Lord Beveridge foresees a much larger outflow from Britain if families are able to migrate under an assisted scheme than if the opportunity is limited strictly to selected migrants to fit into particular kinds of employment. Australia and Canada are now opening their doors widely for immigration, and may be expected to accommodate families in some degree from the realisation that they need a considerable increase of population. Such an increase in sparsely peopled countries is contributory to social security. The old theory that population outruns the means of subsistence was a case of gen[eralising from an unjust social system, rather than from the contrast in new countries where opportunity is less limited by vested interest. The success of social security, either through a general or a specific taxation principle, depends finally on a sufficiency of contributors, failing which there is inevitable a reduction either in benefits or beneficiaries.