Friendly Societies and the State
It was obvious from the start that Lord Beveridge was fighting a losing battle for the friendly societies in the House of Lords en Monday. Given that some candidates in each party had committed themselves to the view that the societies should act as the 'agents of the Government in administering certain National Insurance benefits, and given that the societies themselves were determined
not to let them forget it, there was bound to be a battle. But the determination of the Government not to modify its policy of having all benefits administered by its own officials made it certain that the friendly societies would lose the day. Moreover, the Attorney- General did not confine himself to defence. He enumerated the difficulties of trying to operate voluntary and compulsory insurance schemes through noh-govemmental organisations for that minority of the population which belongs to friendly societies. He attacked the argument that the personal touch between friendly societies and their members is an important factor, and left very little of it stand- ing. He pointed out that complaints about administration by the Ministry of National Insurance come, not from individuals, but from the societies. But the most telling argument came from Lord Lindsay, who pointed out that although the beneficiaries might need friendly societies to represent their interests, that was not the same thing as making them part of the State machine. The fact is that if the societies cannot stand or. their own feet there is no good reason why they should be propped up. And since expediency points in the same direction—for any major change in the National Insurance Bill now will prevent the new increases in old age pen- sions from taking effect in October—there is no chance that the friendly societies will get their way.
Previous page
