SOCIAL SECURITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26747, 16 April 1948, Page 6

SOCIAL SECURITY

SYSTEMS COMPARED ADDRESS BY LORD BEVERIDGE USE OF SUBSISTENCE BASIS A large gathering of students and members of the teaching staff of the University of Otago listened to a concise and fluent exposition on the subject of “Public Action for Social Advance” by Lord Beveridge in the Allen Hall last night. In the main the speaker directed his remarks to a comparison between the social security systems of Great Britain and New Zealand. raising a number of points which prompted questions at the end of his lecture. The chairman of the Professorial Board, Dr V. E. Galway, who presided, welcomed Lord and Lady Beveridge and proposed a vote of thanks at the conclusion of his address. “Voluntary Action for Social Advance” will be the subject of Lord Beveridge’s next lecture. After tracing briefly the history of social advances in the two countries, •with particular reference to the fact that, although there were times when one country was ahead of the other, both Britain and New Zealand had moved along parallel tracks in the matter of reform, Lord Beveridge proceeded to a comparison of the prevailing social security systems. The main point of similarity, he said, was the comprehensive nature of each scheme, in most countries social benefits were for people working for others for wages, but in Britain and New Zealand the benefits were available to all citizens. “ In this respect we lead the world, and no other countries can approach us.” he said. Moreover, both countries had flat rates of benefits not related to previous eairnings, the only other country in the world with such a system being Eire. In Germany the community was divided into classes, according to earnings; in the United States the benefit was related to the individual wage dr salary; and in Russia the benefit was according to services rendered to the State.

“If you have been a good boy from the Soviet Government’s point of view, you qualify for a higher benefit. This idea is, of course, completely removed f_ r ? m Communism. In fact, the British scheme, which gives according to the needs of the citizen, is more Communistic than the Russian system,” he said.

Enumerating what he described as “ several minor difference's ” Lord Beveridge quoted the family allowance in New Zealand (10s for each child) against the British allowance of 5s for each child but the first. In New Zealand about 60 per cent, of the finance for the scheme came from special taxation at the rate of Is 6d in the £l, whereas in Britain there was a fixed contribution regardless of income, this raising about 50 per cent, of the total required. The means test had been entirely abolished in Britain, he said, and there was also a different system in relation to injuries received in the course of industry. The Dominion system of proceeding against the employer was considered in England to be unwieldy and productive of much unnecessary litigation. • The main practical difference between two systems, which were at least similar in most respects, was the different scale of monetary benefits, said Lord Beveridge. In New Zealand the benefit when employment ceased because of age or ill-health was approximately 70 per cent, of the minimum wage while: in Britain the benefit was approximately 40 per cent. The fundamental of the British plan was to give enough but not more than enough, for subsistence, he said. * “You are entitled to insist that everyone should have bread, but we contend that it is up to the individual to say whether he will have jam on his bread during his youth or wait for it until his old age.” Taking money from a citizen by compulsion in order to give him more than was needed for actual subsistence later was considered in Britain to be an unjustifiable interference with individual responsibility. “ We make it easy for people to save. That is why we have no means test” he said, pointing out that, once a bare subsistence was provided fop, it was the privilege of the individual to say whether or not he would make provision for more comfortable circumstances in the time of sickness or retirement. ..... Lord Beveridge said that the health schemes of the two countries were both designed to remove the economic barrier between the sick man and the doctor. The difference in the organisation of the schemes was that, in England', doctors received so much for each person registered with them, while in New Zealand doctors received a fee for service. Thirty years’ experience of the panel system was the main reason for adopting the capitation scheme in Britain. Summing up, the social security schemes in each country were essentially monetary, said Lord Beveridge. The principle involved was the taking of money from the citizen while he was earning and giving it back to him when he was unable to earn. The aim of freedom from want could not, however, be fully achieved while there were still people, wanting houses and while there were long queues waiting for admission to the hospitals. Social security was, therefore, a means to an end, and not an end in itself.