Not since the day of Munich had the British press given such play to any single story. War news was all but pushed from the pages of London's war-curtailed dail ies. Many of them devoted half their space to news of the document which, in the midst of war, looked forward to a better post-war world. The Beveridge Report, published last week, was the biggest domestic event for Britons in many years.
Sir William Henry Beveridge's report ran to 200,000 words. Work had begun on it 18 months ago, when the white-haired economist was appointed by the then Minister of Reconstruction, Arthur Green wood, to "survey . . . existing national schemes of social insurance and allied services . . . and to make recommendations." Sir William had written the bulk of his report in longhand. Now it was before the public, and the public was eating it up.
Within five hours of publication it had sold 70,000 copies, by the week's end 90,000.
As had been forecast, the Beveridge Report proposed a comprehensive, compulsory system of social insurance for every man, woman and child in the British Isles, regardless of age, income or class, with premiums to be paid by the individual, his employer and the State (TIME, Dec. 7). But contrary to general pre-publication expectation there was not a revolutionary idea in the whole report. What Sir William proposed, in the words of Britain's steady, influential weekly The Economist, was "a plan for the security of incomes up to a minimum level . . . based upon existing schemes and existing methods."
The Enthusiasts. First reaction of press and public was one of almost unanimous approval. Said the London Times, traditionally first newspaper on the break fast tables of Britain's rulers: "A momentous document which should and must exercise a profound and immediate in fluence on the direction of social change in Britain." Other comments: Telegraph: "The consummation of the revolution begun by Mr. Lloyd George in 1911. . . . Perhaps the one really basic innovation ... is the establishment of a national minimum level of subsistence." Manchester Guardian: "A big and fine thing." Daily Worker: "A courageous attempt ... to alleviate some of the worst evils of present-day society. . . . The main principles . . . will be endorsed by all progressive opinion." The man in the street: "A bit of all right." The Plan. The Beveridge plan foresaw joint contributions by employer and employe of a maximum of 75 6d ($1.50) weekly, of which the employer would pay 33 3d (65¢), the employe 45 3d, which would be deducted automatically from his wages. Remaining cost would be borne by the Treasury.
In the first year of application (1945) the cost would be distributed as follows: £351,000,000 from the Treasury; £194,000,000 from insurees; £137,000,000 from employers, and £15,000,000 from interest. In 1965, when contributions would be paid out at full rates the cost would be borne: £519,000,000 from the Treasury; £192,000,000 from insurees; £132,000,000 from employers, and £15,000,000 from interest.