[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sut,—In the Spectator of
March 8th you give some detailed particulars of Mr. Broad's scheme for " All-in " Insurance. May I point out an omission which is common to Sir W. Beveridge's scheme also and to most similar schemes and charities, viz., the unmarried woman, whose lot is often a very hard one ? A woman who loses her husband loses her means of support and may be thrown on the world to make her own way, and when this is very difficult for her, she will need the help offered in the schemes. But the unmarried woman has always been without such support, and during the years that her sister has had her husband's wages coming in, and has had her husband to share her anxieties, she has been ploughing a lonely furrow, bearing the full burden of perhaps uncertain work as well as uncertain health. If she is definitely unemployed, from sickness or • otherwise, she is provided for, but if she can do and can get a little work, it becomes a constant strain to keep things going.
With my limited experience, I cannot see how her case can be met without undermining her independence, but I think some of the almost excessive consideration shown to the widow might be passed over to her. A widow in her 'twenties or 'thirties should be quite as capable as the spinster of earning her own living ; presumably she did so before marrying, and, given a pension, say for two years, she should be able to pick up the threads again. A widow with children is, of course, another story.-4 am, Sir, &c.,
Miss D. Wooldridge writes :—" Both Sir William Beveridge and Mr. T. T. Broad have left out a very important item in their " All-in " schemes of Social Insurance—i.e., burial insurance. This type of insurance is confined to the working classes, and they spend some £35,000,000 annually to assure themselves of decent burial."
Previous page
