MAJORITY REPORT.
pan
cannot bear any further burden at present, and, indeed, that
the need for some aileviation of the load is most urgent
and could be readily realised by a substantial reduction of the
contributions of employers and employed persons under the
Health Insurance Scheme. They maintain ‘‘ that there is a
definite limit to the amount of money which any country can
afford to spend in the providing of social services,”’ and that
‘“ that limit has in Great Britain already been largely exceeded,
and particularly so in the case of Health Insurance ’’ (App.
CVII, 6). They submit the following table to illustrate the
relative position in the principal European countries and to show
how heavy in comparison is the burden imposed on Great Britain
in respect of five of the social services, viz. : Poor Law, Workmen’s
Compensation, Old Age Pensions, Health Insurance and
Unemployment Insurance :(—
Cost of five Social Services per
hee? F total population.
ler cent. as compared
with Great Britain.
Country.
I. Great Britain on
2. Germany ... a
». France a ps
4. Czecho-Slovakia ...
J. Belgiom © J.
6. Italy... rot op
147. Special reference is made by the Confederation to the
increase of contribution required to finance the new Contributory
Pensions Scheme. Even after allowance is made for the reduction
in the Health Insurance contribution consequent upon the
lowering of the age limit from 70 to 65, and the reduction in the
Unemployment Insurance contribution which came into force
at the same time, the net result is that the total weekly contribution
for the Insurance Schemes has been raised from
2s. bd. to 2s. 9d. in the case of men. At the former rate the
employer bore 1s. 3d., whereas he now bears 1s. 5d.
148. The following tables show the details of the changes to
which effect has recently been given :—
uy
MEN.
Health and Pensions
Health
Pensions.
Total for Health and
Pensions.
Year.
1925
1926
Emplover.
bd.
Aid
| Worker.
5d.
114
Emplover.
434d
| ‘Worker.
43d
Employer.
od.
da
| Worker. Total.
bd.
0.
10d.
12 6d
