SOCIAL SECURITY

Grey River Argus, 26 February 1943, Page 5

SOCIAL SECURITY

BRITISH LABOUR PARTY Difference with Ministers [Aust. & N.Z. Cable Assn.] ' LONDON, Feb. 24. The National Executive of the Labour Party, after discussion of the Commons Beveridge debate reaffirmed the resolution adopted by the National Council of Labour on December 17, approving the principles of the report, and calling on the Government for early' legislation to give general effect to the report. The General Council of Trade Unions Council, after considering the circumstances arising from the ParPamentary}, debate on the Beveridge report issued a statement: .“While reaffirming the prevoius. declarations in support of the principles of the Beveridge report the Council expressed confidence in the Labour’ members of the Government.” The Parliamentary Labour Party at a full meeting discussed the differences over last week’s division in the Commons on the Beveridge report. Messrs Attlee, Herbert and Morrison defended thp Labour Ministers’ action over the report. Only' one of those present suggested the Ministers should leave the Government. but he found no support. The meet’ng was quiet. No vote of confidence or vote of censure was suggested. PARTY MEETING. NOT ATTENDED BY LABOUR MINISTER. (Rec. 10.30.) LONDON, Feb. 24. The “Daily Mail’s” political writer says:— Rt. Hon. Mr. Bevin has caused consternation among the leading Labour members by refusing to attend a meeting of the Labour Party until the situation arising from the Labour 'vote against Government on the Beveridge Report has been cleared up. Mr. Bevin did not attend to-day’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He believed that the Party’s attitude is tantamount to a disavowal of the Labour Ministers.

DISCUSSION IN LORDS.

DEMANDS FOR NEW MINISTRY.

RUGBY, Feb. 24

Strong demands for the immediate establishment of a Ministry of Social Security’, were made, when the Lords debated the Beveridge report.

Lord Nathan who moved the motion asked: “Is it the Government’s intention to give prevention to want a priority in the post-war world? Will the' Government create at once a Ministry of Social Security? Are men and women still to be expected to bring themselves to a subsistence level by voluntary contributions or private insurance?” Lord Lang of Lambeth—former Archbishop .of Canterbury,—characterised the report “as one of the greatest State documents in my time,” and “epoch making.” Both he and Lord Samuel advocated the appointment of a Minister of Social Security. Viscount Bennett —former Prime Minister of Canada —suggested the whole of our energies should be concentrated on winning the war, without which there would be- no social security for anyone. Lord Simon said that whatever would be the denunciation addressed to the Government, it would be utterly wrong if it consented to be bustled by national enthusiasm for this immense project. While he put social security very high it was only a portion of the problems .in the post-war field meriting consideration. A Minister of Social Security would involve a new staff, composed of experts from the Ministries now dealing with the various aspects covered by the report, and would weaken those Ministries. The business-like thing to do was to proceed with the existing Ministry, which was devoting intense application to the various sides of the whole process. Lord Simon added: “We in this country! can take pride in having formulated and developed social security schemes before anyone else. It would 'be a grave error to regard the system of insurance and compensation as all that ought to be meant by social security.”