MAJORITY REPORT.

1

=

7

favourable to the present rates of payment for sickness and disablement
 benefits being increased. Voluntary Societies make
ample provision for any person who requires a larger amount of
benefit than is provided under National Health Insurance.”
(App. VIII, 5.) ‘° We are of opinion that the present standard
rates should be the maximum on the ground that the real purpose
of the Act is preventive and curative, and not so much for the
purpose of providing monetary benefit at the time of sickness,
and that there are agencies in existence, and were in existence
before the inception of the National Insurance Act, which were
then, and are to-day, quite capable of providing monetary assistance
 if such is needed.” (Q. 6107, 6128-6145, 6159-6162.)
Other witnesses representing the Friendly Societies gave evidence
to a similar effect (e.g., Loyal Order of Amcient Shepherds,
App. XL1IV, 18-19; Q. 14,086-14,099, and the National Conference
 of Friendly Societies, Q. 10,649-10,660).
302. On the other hand, certain witnesses refer to the inadequacy
 of the present rates of benefit for the purpose of meeting
the requirements of a sick person and his family. For
instance, the T.ancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation
Approved Society point out that ‘‘ when a man is sick he
requires more money, not less, for the purpose of obtaining
nourishment *’ (Q. 7381) and express the view that ‘if a man
receives what he does for compensation because of injury received
while following his employment he ought, if he is laid aside
through sickness, to be paid a similar amount.” (Q. 7382.)
303. The impression left on us by evidence of this type is
that the present rates are not considered really adequate for
maintenance in time of sickness, even by their defenders, but
that they provide an assured minimum to which, as a basis,
other provision, e.g. additional benefits, voluntary insurance,
savings, &c., may be added, and that there are advantages,
moral and otherwise, in such a mixed system.

RELATION OF BENEFITS TO COST OF LAVING.
304. It is interesting to note that when in 1920 the rates of
the 1911 Act were raised by 50 per cent. to meet the increased
cost of living, that cost had in fact risen at that time by about
175 per cent. No doubt the general prosperity and high wagerates
 of that time made this disparity of the two increases of no
great importance. Now, however, with reduced wages, much
unemployment, and little opportunity for saving, the question
of disparity is of considerable moment. The disparity is in fact,
and fortunately, nothing like what it was. But it still remains.
The cost of living is 75 per cent. higher than in 1914, the rates
of benefit only 50 per cent. Even when every allowance is made
for additional benefits, the comparison between the present position
 of the statutory cash benefits and that of 1914 cannot be
regarded as entirely satisfactory