" ALL-IN " INSURANCE

[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—There seems a general consensus of opinion in favour of a consolidation and development of insurance along the lines of an " All-in " National Insurance Policy. Men and women of all parties and ranks agree that many great advan- tages would follow its adoption. The present systems are worked on the principle of the maximum of costs with the minimum of benefits. To reverse this principle means the adoption of an " All-in " insurance that can be worked on lines of efficiency and economy. But, however desirable it may be to obtain real security for workers and their families, is it possible for the State to afford to do so now ? Many persons think that the State cannot possibly bear the cost. They say it is out of the question until trade is better and taxes lower.

I wonder sometimes if citizens know what are the present charges on workers, employers, and the State for the present actual scale of benefits ! The figures given below in Tables No. 1 and 2 can be verified at the Treasury or the various Government Departments.

Table No. I.—Present cost to the State (Exchequer) (1) Old Age Pensions (over 70) 28,000,000 (2) Unemployment .. 18,000,000 (3) National Health .. 9,000,000 £55,000,000 (4) Add State grants for special work for the workless (Imperial and local) .. 25,000,000 Total £80,009,000

Or., if you take (4) and reckon that the Exchequer pays one. half of these grants you have the following total :—

E

Nos. (1), (2), (3) 55,000,00

(4) One half .. • • 12,500,000 £67,500,009 What is popularly known as the "Broad" Scheme - as shown later can be worked on the basis of a total State contribution of about £60,000,000. To say that nothing can be done to increase sickness benefits, or institute 30s. per week pensions at sixty-three, or to give immediate relief to present necessitous widows and orphans, or to add 2s. 6d. per week to all present Old-Age Pensioners over seventy, because there is no likelihood of the State being able to afford the necessary money, is a wrong conclusion. The State is already paying about the same total amount of money. The " Broad " Scheme will not cost the Exchequer any more than the State is now paying.

I submit Table 2, which gives the amount of money contri- buted by workers, employers, and the State : (1) Unemployment .. 55,000,000 (2) Poor Law .. 47,000,000 (3) National Health . 30,000,000 (4) Old Age Pensions.. .. 28,000,000 (5) Workmen's Compensation and Ern-

ployers. Liability .. .. 15,000,000

(6) State Grants .. 25,000,000 Total • • • . £200,000,000

When I published my brochure Parliament had passed 'Approval of pensions for necessitous widows and orphans, and the then Government contemplated doing something for Old Age Pensioners. .So I left them out of my scheme. Now they can be restored and then we have a real "All-in" National Insurance covering practically all adults over 16.

Table No. 3 gives the estimated cost of the Broad Scheme tor the first year :— (1) Pensions at 63 . 62,000,000

Per Week.

Chil-

Women. Men. dren.

(2) Unemployment .. 32,000,000 .. 20/– 301– (3) Sickness, .&c. 28,000,000 .. 20/– 30 /– (4) Medical, 12,000,000 • • —

(5) Widows and Orphans 15,000,000 .. 12/6

(6) Old Age Pensions .. 35,000,000 .. 12;6 12/6 (7) Administration 12,000,000

(8) Surplus .. 44,000,000

Total £240,000,000 Note that (6) would end in about fourteen years and that sum be added to the fund. Further, in about the same period the charge for present necessitous widows and orphans in (5) would terminate. Thus the fund would gain from these two causes.

The Income could be raised as follows. I give round figures (1) Workers .. 62,000,000 (2) State 66,000,000 (3) Employers .. 112,000,000 Total • • .. £240,000.000 The bringing in of practically the whole adult working population, instead of confining the scheme according to the present State systems, means a large increase of income, and a financial stability of the most convincing kind.

It is stated that the Prime Minister has requested the Minister of Health to go into this " All-in" insurance question. May I venture to submit to Mr. Neville Chamberlain that there is no need to delay promoting a feasible and a workable scheme • thave shown that the cost to the State will not exceed the present cost to the Exchequer. Employers will welcome this new scale of benefits providing more adequately for times of misfortune and old age. They are willing to pay their share to obtain these definite advantages for their workers and families. They know they will get a return in less worry and trouble, and in finding that happy and contented workers do more and better work.

The workers were led at the last election to trust the promises made in thousands of speeches that early in the new Parlia- ment steps should be taken to provide such benefits as to give them and their loved ones reasonable security in life.. There is no 'easier or quicker way to disappoint an electorate than by delays, doubts, and Parliamentary at' canny. The best way to peace, prosperity, increased production, happier relations, is to make things right for the workers. Let Parliament move along these lines of caring for and protecting the interest of the makers of the nation's wealth and greatness,_ and the response will be wonderful. Can our statesmen- rise to the greatness of the opportunity, and without delay' fulfil their promises '? Confidence is needed but nowhere more than in keeping faith with the workers.—I am, Sir, &e.. T. T. BROAD.