Learning from the Beveridge Report

In the Guardian (19th March 2020) Martin Kettle wrote:

"The second world war remains the foundation myth of modern Britain. Invoking it is a familiar default setting in British party politics. It has a Conservative version, embodied in Churchill, with whom Johnson compares himself. And it has its Labour version, in the form of veneration of Attlee and the post-1945 welfare state."

One of the things that has never ceased to amaze me about the Second World War is that, at the moment of greatest existential threat, when the bombs were still falling, detailed plans were being drawn up for the kind of country that might be built once peace was restored.

The Beveridge Report was the result of a study undertaken in June 1941 by an inter-departmental committee of the wartime coalition government who were tasked with looking at widespread reforms to the system of social welfare. The resulting 300-page document entitled “Social Insurance and Allied Services” laid the foundations for what was to become the Welfare State - a blanket term covering the National Health Service, Pensions and National Insurance, Family Allowances and Rent Control.

There is something almost unbelievable about the idea that such an ambitious, visionary and seemingly idealistic set of recommendations could be drawn up during the darkest days of the war. But then these ideas didn’t just emerge from nowhere. They were rooted in wartime emergency measures designed to address fundamental issues of survival. Thus there were initiatives to provide milk and nutrition to nursing mothers and school children; an emergency hospital service provided free treatment to those suffering from war injuries, whilst rationing — maybe surprisingly — led to significant improvements in the diets of poor families.

I have been thinking about this and trying to write down my thoughts. As fast as I do so however, I find myself overwhelmed by further questions. Nevertheless, there is one insight that appears to have taken root, namely that it is in times of crisis that the seeds of change are sown. Just as in the Second World War the threat of military annihilation and subsequent occupation forced the British government into an unspoken pact with the people to do ‘whatever it takes’ to survive, so the present government is asking people to subject themselves to a number of distressing restrictions in order — as Johnson puts it — to ‘see off’ the coronavirus.

But there is always a contractual aspect to such impositions. If people are to confine themselves within their own homes and to home-educate their children then it is reasonable for them to expect some protection from profiteers and ruthless landlords. Similarly, at a time when thousands of people are being made redundant it is essential they have the means to obtain the basic necessities. The idea of a universal basic income — a monthly distribution of money made without preconditions — is a sensible and efficient way to ensure this, as well as a means to prevent economic meltdown. We are still in the early days of this crisis but it seems reasonable to expect the government will be forced, however reluctantly, to do something of the sort.

To return to the Beveridge Report: it is worth noting that its publication during the war was met with enthusiasm from all sections of the community. The Ministry of Information Home Intelligence found that the Report had been "welcomed with almost universal approval by people of all shades of opinion” and seen as "the first real attempt to put into practice the talk about a new world"

Nevertheless, once the war was over Churchill found all sorts of good reasons why the proposals for social reform should be watered down or delayed. In this, it seems, he misjudged the mood of the populace who, after years of deprivation and austerity were eager for change. The Labour Party won the 1945 General Election and set about implementing the report’s recommendations through a series of Acts of Parliament. The rest, as they say, is history.

And here we are now - not strictly at war but in a time which, by common consensus, has many of its characteristics. The concept of the ‘small state’ is suddenly out of the window; there will undoubtedly be government initiatives designed to ensure the supply of basic necessities as well as the introduction of ‘special powers’ justified on the grounds of maintaining order. Along with these state interventions, we will also hopefully see the growth of community-based networks whose aim will be to foster social cohesion, support the vulnerable and to build and sustain resilience.

When we emerge from this crisis however, one thing is sure: we must on no account allow things to go back to normal.