LESS MISERY MEANS LESS HATE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 18, Issue 461, 23 April 1948, Page 7

LESS MISERY MEANS LESS HATE

Lord Beveridge on Social Security

reforms sprang from the heart, 20th Century from the head. The 19th Century reformers hoped to abolish obvious evils from an existing system. The 20th Century thinkers have set out not merely to remove but also to build. Lord Beveridge stands out as the exponent and promoter of a new social system in Britain. For over 30 years his mind has been working on the problem of building a new Britain, secure from want and idleness yet still maintaining "a free society." dpi gia CENTURY "Intelligence at the service of man-kind"’-that was the thought that crossed my mind as I shook hands with Lord Beveridge. For Lord’ Beveridge, despite his incursion into politics and his benevolent smile, remains the scholar whose brains even more than his heart have led him into the formulation of his views on full employment and social security. He is the man_of thought who has become the man of action. But he has still the intellectual aloofness of the scholar, even though he has seen his ideas take shape in government policy. Lady Beveridge, Scottish, charming, and clearly used to being a co-worker with him, remained with us-as Lord Beveridge put it-"to help him out." The shape of my first question was, perhaps, inevitable. "In what ways would you say, Lord Beveridge, that the New Zealand scheme for Social Security

falls short of, or exceeds or indeed differs in principle from your recommendations?" ‘ "New Zealand and Britain have each a scheme which, in comprehensiveness, is far ahead of that in any other country that we know about. There are two special points in the British scheme which you haven’t got. One is State Compénsation for industrial injuries. In New Zealand they are still the liability of the employer. In Britain that is part of the general scheme. In New Zealand benefits also you have no special provision for funerals. Having a State system makes unnecessary the rather expensive system of industrial assurance. The main difference on the New Zealand side is that the benefits are higher. We (presumably Great Britain. and Lord Beveridge) don’t want benefits higher. All we want is bare necessities provided for." Getting and Saying. "To leave an incentive for thrift," added Lady Beveridge. "Exactly. To take compulsorily in order to give more than a minimum, is interference with individual liberty. A man may not starve or remain diseased without treatment. Above that he is a free man. Then again, in the British scheme, on principle we bar any means test." ‘4 "That," said Lady Beveridge, "is the essence of your report. What you get is not dependent on what you have saved." "New Zealand and Britain aim at the same thing, but you still have the

means test for sickness, for unemployment and for widows. We think that is wrong because it sets a maximum on income, even though the difference may seem to be more theoretical than veg tical." "But it is an essential part of the plan," said Lady Beveridge, "that people may make as much as they can." "Then again," said Lord Beveridge, "there is the main difference on the method by which the scheme is financed. In New Zealand you have a special tax which, in point of fact, only covers a part of the cost. But it all comes from general taxation. In Britain 40 to 50 per cent of the cost is raised from contributions made by the employer and employee. I believe that this is the best guarantee against the benefits being pushed up just for political purposes. You want some barrier against those who are, so to speak, generous for political reasons. But let me add that though I came down on

the side of these flat contributions this has been much criticised as regressive taxation." Defence Against Bureaucracy "In your writings you stress the importance of a free society. How far do you consider it possible for this free society to escape from becoming purely a bureaucracy?" I asked. "The ultimate safeguard is for you to have a real democracy. You must always be able to change your government when it does too many things that you don’t like. In Britain we’-have through the Members of Parliament a very ‘close daily criticism of what the bureaucracy is doing. Every Member of Parliament in election becomes automatically aware of his constituents. During my brief period in the House I felt very strongly aware of the wishes of my electorate. Hundreds of letters and inquiries pour in daily and this brings constant criticism of the working of the Civil Service, which is a good thing-provided,. of course, that elections are not too frequent and politicians consequently too sensitive to public opinion." "And what of the general criticism that is levelled at Social Security-that the greater the security the less the incentive to work and work well?" Lady Beveridge replied quickly, "The whole plan is built to guard against

this. If there is a job and you refuse it, you don’t get the benefit." "All the same," said Lord Beveridge, "there is ‘a danger in Social Security guaranteeing benefits. It may appear to discourage people from working hard but it does abolish fear. People should be led by hope rather than pushed by fear. Full employment is more importe ant than Social Security." "The fence is more important than the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff?" Learning to Spend Wisely "And is it going to be a big job to teach people who for generations have lived more or less on the bread-line to spend wisely?" I asked. "Only experience can teach people," said Lady Beveridge. "The trouble," said Lord paren "is the people who set out to teach people to spend badly-in Britain, football pools, for example. Influences like those corrupt people, and it is these that the forces of education have to set out to fight." Lord Beveridge has always remained a staunch Liberal. I could not help asking him what, if any, were the prospects of a Liberal revival in England. "The trouble is," he said, with his most benevolent smile, "that everyone in;England is a Liberal but no one will vote Liberal. People don’t vote according to their opinions these days. They just bet on the winning side!" In 1944 it seemed as though a big air force and an atom bomb were the best arms against the totalitarian state. Perhaps in years to come the planning in 1942 of a free and secure society may yet remain as the bigger achieve. ment. Here are some words from the preface of Lord Beveridge’s second report Full Employment in a Free Society, which sets out the purpose behind his life’s work: "Misery breeds hate. . rs This is my main text. The greatest evil of unemployment is not physical but moral, not the want which it may bring but the hatred and fear which it breeds, So the greatest evil of war is not physical but spiritual, not the ruin of cities and the killing of bodies but the perversion of all that is best in man’s spirit, ta serve purposes of destruction, hate, cruelty, deceit and revenge."

S.

S.