BEVERIDGE PLAN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 41, 19 February 1943, Page 4

BEVERIDGE PLAN

REBELLION OF LABOUR MEMBERS MAY OPPOSE THEIR OWN MINISTERS (Rpcd. 6.45 p.m.) Rugby. Feb. 17. A rebellion of Labour members of the House of Commons against the Government’s attitude to the Beveridge report is developing quickly* The Parliamentary Labour Party to-day, in the secrecy of the House of Commons committee room, held one of the biggest and most excited meetings tor a long time. It is considered that dramatic happenings last night, which plunged the Labour Party into a dilemma, means that the Labour members of the House of Commons as a whole have officially rejected the Government policy, presumably subscribed to by their own Ministers, including Mr. C. B. Attlee, Mr. Ernest Bevin and ' Mr. Herbert Morrison. It is understood that the bulk of to-day's meeting supported a motion disapproving the Government's policy as announced by Sir John Anderson, but after appeals from Mr. Attlee and Mr. Morrison, a final decision was postponed un~ to-morrow, when another meeting will be held. An echo of the Labour Party storm was heard on the resumption of the Beveridge report debate in the House of Commons to-day. Mr. A. J. Barnes (Labour) said that Sir John Anderson’s statement of the Government’s views was profoundly unsatisfactory to many members and in no conditions could be accepted. The final attitude of the Labour Party would depend whether the Government was prepared to meet the overwhelming; opinion of the House. His main complaint was that Sir John Anderson’s statement broke up the whole conception of the Beveridge report and meant a return to the pre-' war attitude, which had led to a patchwork approach to social insurance. He argued that the total increased cost involved in the plan was only 4 per cent, of the present Budget and did not spring from the proposals themselves, but from the granting of, children’s allowances, which would come anyway, and from old age pensions. Sir Kingsley Wood. Chancellor of the Exchequer, prefaced his speech with an endorsement of Sir John Anderson’s remarks about post-war finance being an unknown quantity. Also, the Government must not overlook the development of other vital post-war services such as housing, education, and civil aviation. He emphasised that the Government was doing nothing to retaru the Beveridge proposals; it was doing every thing that could reasonably be done at present to expedite them, and immediately after the present debate step* to put the scheme into operation would be taken as far as the main aims were concerned. In regard to a comprehensive medical service, the Government would take immediate steps. It would mean considerable adjustments—almost complete revolution—and naturally negotiations with the medical profession, and the setting un of the new system would take time. It would be right and proper that the Government, after the negotiation stages should again consider the financial situation before finally commiting itself to legislation. Replying tn Mr. E. Shinwell (Lab.), who asked if the family allowance proposals would be put into operation at once, Sir Kingsley Wood said that since the Government would be asking the people to make tremendous contributions, the extent of which was not perhajw realised, it ought to produce the scheme as a whole and not treat one section in isolation. He believed the setting up of a Ministry of Social Security now would not expedite, but retard preparation for the scheme. He was not opposed to the establishment of a Ministry later. He agreed that on family allowances and insurance generally the scheme should be universal. Mr. R. S. Hudson (Con.), suggested that the prevention of unemployment be linked with the maintenance of a prosperous agriculture and that some of the proposed allowance be in kind, in the form of wheat, meat and milk. Mr. Heidlam (Con.) deprecated interference in insurance business, which was a valuable foreign asset to which the country must look for maintaining national interests until the export trade was restored.

Sir lan Fraser (Con.) thought Injured workmen should not get a lump sum of compensation, but fixed life pensions in respect ot disabilities, not earnings.

Several Independent members expressed disappointment at the Government’s attitude, which they thought the country would not accept—B.O.W.