Notes of statement by Sir William Beveridge to General Council at their meeting on 16 December, 1942
1942-12-17 1942 1940s 9 pages 6. Sir William Beveridge said he imagined the effect would be that the man who retired at 60 would become a person (provided he did not take on any work at all) in Class 4, which was persons of working age not gainfully occupied. He would be liable to contribute for p...
| 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/10796/22E5818F-4ED9-4CFA-86E2-F95BC6B02319 http://hdl.handle.net/10796/6924BED8-D395-4C94-BA58-841D00BEB490 |
| Summary: | 1942-12-17
1942
1940s
9 pages
6. Sir William Beveridge said he imagined the effect would be that the man who retired at 60 would become a person (provided he did not take on any work at all) in Class 4, which was persons of working age not gainfully occupied. He would be liable to contribute for pension, medical treatment and funeral expenses. Then when he got to 65 he would get his full State pension in addition to his occupational pension, but he would be liable to contribute unless he got exemption on the ground that he had less than £75. per year. It would be a very good bargain for him to go on doing so. Mr. Gibson thought a different arrangement was envisaged under paragraph 150 of the Report. Sir William Beveridge stated that in the light of what the State was going to do, the Civil Service etc. may like to reconsider their schemes, and probably there would be legislative enactment which would make it possible to alter those schemes without a breach of trust. He was doubtful whether most of them would get altered apart from the Civil Service. He didn't think there would be much change in the schemes. He believed most employers would be delighted that the State was doing something but would think their fellows ought to be better off than anybody else, and would keep their schemes going. He had put in the power for altering, but he didn't think it would be very widely used. Mr. Conley said that one of the most interesting comments he had read was that by S. Rowntree dealing with the subsistenc [subsistence] level. Sir William Beveridge pointed out that he had not read the comment by Mr. Rowntree, but he presumed it was on the question of rent. Mr. Rowntree had approved everything except the flat rate for rent. He was a member of the Committee which examined subsistence allowances. On rent he had a very strong and good case. The sum of 40/- for a man and his wife allowed for a rent of 10/-. Sir William realised, of course, that a great
292/150.5/5/2 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |