Viewed historically, it is difficult to understand why the gradual emergence in Britain of a more balanced age structure should be regarded as a ‘problem of ageing’. What we have to our credit as humanists and good husbanders is a great reduction in premature death since the nineteenth century; as a result, we have derived many benefits from our growing ability to survive through the working span of life. Much of the inefficiency and waste of early death has been eliminated by an increase in the expectation of life at birth of the working classes to a point that now approaches closer to that achieved by more prosperous classes.

This should be a matter for satisfaction. Paradoxically, however, we are alarmed by our success. Perversely, we speak about the ‘crippling’ burden of old age, forgetting that the extraordinarily youthful structure of Victorian society entailed a phenomenal rate of growth in numbers and was accompanied by great losses from morbidity and mortality among children and young people.

I believe that the present alarm is unjustified; that the demographic changes which are under way and are foreseeable have been exaggerated, and that unless saner views prevail harm may be done to the public welfare.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss certain aspects of social provision for old age and, in particular, some of the issues raised by the report of the Phillips Committee. This involves consideration of five other important state documents which, in one way or another, bear on the question of standards of living for old people. All these reports exhibit in common a deep concern about future population trends.

No attempt is made in this essay to offer alternatives to present policies and practices. What is presented here is a broad analysis of contrasting pension systems in the context of population change.

Much of the present anxiety about the effects of an ‘ageing’ population on the social services can be traced back to the Beveridge Report and the measures that followed from that report. Among a number of factors which heavily influenced the Beveridge recommendations perhaps the most important were the estimates of future population which the report employed. These suggested that the population of pensionable ages in Britain would rise from 5,571,000 or 12 per cent in 1941 to 9,576,000 or 21 per cent in 1971.