Notes of statement by Sir William Beveridge to General Council at their meeting on 16 December, 1942
1942-12-17 1942 1940s 9 pages 2. He thought he had really got the greatest common measure of agreement between all the bodies which had looked at social insurance as a whole and who were not simply interested in a particular problem such as Friendly Societies, Insurance Societies or Accident Insur...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Institution: | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
17 December 1942
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/EBB7FD3A-30EB-4C7E-BB85-A94141129220 http://hdl.handle.net/10796/158A9C16-1717-4C65-B6D2-33875E857516 |
| Summary: | 1942-12-17
1942
1940s
9 pages
2. He thought he had really got the greatest common measure of agreement between all the bodies which had looked at social insurance as a whole and who were not simply interested in a particular problem such as Friendly Societies, Insurance Societies or Accident Insurance Companies. The only point on which his report differed from the T.U.C. proposals was the treatment of workmen's compensation. The T.U.C. had naturally for a long time been dealing with workmen's compensation and had had one specific proposal, which in one respect was exactly the same as his own - putting to an end the system of litigation and employers' individual liability, and making workmen's compensation for industrial accidents and diseases a social service. The T.U.C. had proposed that there should be an entirely separate scheme of social service for workmen's compensation. On that point he hadn't felt able to go the whole way with the General Council. The T.U.C. scheme would have involved complete duplication throughout of the business of raising money, and that would have meant an administrative complication which would have been difficult to defend. Therefore he had proposed that for the general body of employers there should be included in the contribution paid an amount towards the normal cost of accidents and diseases. When they got to certain hazardous industries such as coalmining, quarrying, constructional work, and a good many individual industries where dangerous machinery was involved, they would have a special levy charged to the employers in order to give an incentive to prevention of danger. A second point of difference was that his proposal meant that the risk for industrial accident and disease was to some extent pooled between the industries. For instance, the mining industry would not be left to bear by itself the whole cost of its exceptional risk of accidents. Other industries couldn't get on without mining, and therefore the risk should be shared. His proposal partly shared the risk and partly left some special charge on mining.
292/150.5/5/2 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |