Notes of statement by Sir William Beveridge to General Council at their meeting on 16 December, 1942
1942-12-17 1942 1940s 9 pages 7. many people paid les than that, but many paid more. He referred the Council to paragraphs 197-215 of the Report. The Fabian Society and the Association of Municipal Corporations had said that rents were so variable over all the country that they couldn't h...
| 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/10796/12726EA6-949F-4878-9A25-022218F0DD0B http://hdl.handle.net/10796/5DFD6D2B-4617-4A63-A5B1-2F0F355BB6F4 |
| Summary: | 1942-12-17
1942
1940s
9 pages
7. many people paid les than that, but many paid more. He referred the Council to paragraphs 197-215 of the Report. The Fabian Society and the Association of Municipal Corporations had said that rents were so variable over all the country that they couldn't have a subsistence allowance which allowed the same uniform rate for rent, and therefore the unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and pension ought to consist of so much for the actual rent paid, plus a fixed sum for food, fuel and clothing. In the terms of the Report a man would be given the amount of his rent plus 30/- instead of the suggested 40/-. Rowntree himself had suggested that. Sir William agreed that that would go nearer to abolishing poverty than his scheme went, but the difficulty was that the rent a man paid was to some extent the rent he was forced to pay, and to some extent he paid a higher rent because he had a higher standard of living. If general insurance was on the basis of charging a flat contribution to everybody, whether skilled artisan or labourer, and then given back a benefit of rent plus 30/- for food etc., it would be found that the artisans would be getting more than the less paid worker for the same contribution, and Sir William did not think that was consistent with insurance principles. Sir William said he realised that his proposal hadn't solved the problem of poverty in old age. He pointed out that he had given the country 20 years to deal with rent problems. They might get a good housing policy, and they might get people who were paying exceptional rent because they wanted to. It would be indefensible on that basis to go on giving more benefit. Sir William called the Council's attention to Para. 253, which he thought was his answer to Rowntree. Mr. Holmes said that in Clause 215 (2) Sir William visualised lower benefits for certain sections and lower contributions. Sir William Beveridge said that that was the paragraph in which he pointed out that broadly speaking 10/- should be taken for rent. The average in London was 6/- above that, and in agricultural
292/150.5/5/2 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |