Notes of statement by Sir William Beveridge to General Council at their meeting on 16 December, 1942
1942-12-17 1942 1940s 9 pages 5. Mr. Lawther raised the question of payments under the proposed scheme. Sir William Beveridge agreed that a single person would get less than he did now in many cases. The scheme as a whole put up benefits and expenditure very much indeed. He knew how difficult it was...
| 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/F1929BF2-F96B-491C-8EC0-64935C2EA4B3 http://hdl.handle.net/10796/C6316932-C050-47D5-BCBA-59EA65B8215D |
| Summary: | 1942-12-17
1942
1940s
9 pages
5. Mr. Lawther raised the question of payments under the proposed scheme. Sir William Beveridge agreed that a single person would get less than he did now in many cases. The scheme as a whole put up benefits and expenditure very much indeed. He knew how difficult it was in this country of deeply vested interests to cut down anybody, but of course the scheme took away some things. For instance it took away [such things as] unconditional pensions such as the unconditional widows' pensions. He did not agree that the present rates were too low for a single man without family responsibilities. They were certainly more than he needed for subsistence. Of course, one of the features of the scheme was that it gave relatively better benefit if a man had family responsibilities. He thought that was right. Mr. Bagnall raised the question of the three days waiting period. He asked if Sir William appreciated that a man and wife with two children would be loosing 19/- per week. Sir William Beveridge said he was not thinking that the present continuity rules would be altered. He imagined they would go on. Mr. Holmes asked whether the new compensation scheme abolished the Employers' Liability Act. Sir William Beveridge said it did not abolish the employer's liability for negligence. He suggested that the whole of the law should be looked at in the light of the change, but he made no definite proposition about it because he hand't [hadn't] had time to look at it, and he was not a technician on it. Mr. Gallie asked what was expected under the new scheme of people who retired compulsorily at 60 years of age, local government employees, civil servants, for example. They ceased to be gainfully employed at 60, whereas the new scheme raised the working age to 65. Would they be required to pay both contributions?
292/150.5/5/2 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |