1.
“2Q
MAJORITY REPORT.
CHAPTER XI.
PROPOSAL: FOR DEPENDANTS’ ALLOWANCES.
300. We now have to consider certain other proposals of a
major nature which have been placed before us. We find two
which in our opinion are close rivals for the second place in the
order of priority in which such funds as may be available should
be applied. These are an increase in the scales of sickness and
disablement benefits, and a maternity benefit enlarged to include
all necessary medical services. We have examined closely
the evidence relating to these questions and have received esti-
mates of cost from the Ministry of Health and the Actuarial
Committee. The maternity question is dealt with in the next
chapter. For reasons which will appear later we have decided
to give priority in our recommendations to an extension of the
cash benefits available in sickness and disablement. It is
appropriate to remark here that the estimated cost of the pro-
posal we make in this regard is practically the total sum which
the margin in the present contribution makes available. Thus,
if this proposal is adopted and the cost of extended medical benefit
is met by the scheme of pooling of surpluses described in Chapter
TX, no further extensions or modifications involving substantial
expenditure can be proposed as immediately practicable within the
financial limits we have set.
FVIDENCE AS TO THE RATES OF CASH BENEFIT
301. The evidence as to the sufficiency of the rates of sickness
and disablement benefits has been of a varied character. This
was almost inevitable in a system where sickness benefit means
15s. in some Societies, 20s. in others, and various intermediate
figures elsewhere; where, too, some Approved Societies provide
substantial benefits on the basis of voluntary insurance and lay
great stress on the maintenance of this side of their work, while
others confine themselves to the State scheme and look to its ex-
pansion for greater support of their members in time of sickness.
Thus, on the one hand, the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows,
though they do not suggest that the existing rates of benefit
are adequate for the maintenance of a married man and his
family, contend (App. VII, 67) that * the statutory rates of sick-
ness and disablement benefit laid down in the Act should not be
increased,” and in reply to questions which we put to them
admitted quite frankly that their recommendation was based on
the apprehension that any increase in the normal rates of benefit
under the Act would be likely *“ to have a very detrimental effect
upon the voluntary thrift movement. ” (Q. 5921-5938). Similarly,
the Independent Order of Rechabites state that they ‘‘ are not
