115 
U 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
that every Society would have complete control over its own 
funds, and that any advantage arising out of a favourable valua- 
tion of those funds would be confined to the members of the 
Society. - (See National Conference of Friendly Societies, 
Q. 5358; Joint Committee of Approved Societies, Q. 8298; 
Prudential Approved Societies, Q. 9684; National Council of 
Agriculture, Q. 21,075.) In opposition to this view the extremists 
of the other school of thought maintain that in a national system 
of insurance, which derives its funds from contributions compul- 
sorily payable by the insured and their employers, there should 
be uniform benefits for all. We propose to deal at some length 
with each of these contentions. 
249. In the pursuit of our task of reviewing the whole Scheme 
of National Health Insurance and considering what changes are 
desirable with a view to making the Scheme of the greatest 
possible benefit to the insured community, we cannot take the 
view that we abe limited by the necessity of adhering to any 
particular principles on which the Scheme was originally set 
up, or by any statements which were made at the time of the 
inception of the Scheme in explanation or in defence of the 
provisions contained in the original Bill. On the contrary, we 
hold that the National Health Insurance Scheme was in the 
nature of a great and novel experiment in the field of social 
welfare, and that it must now be open to Parliament, untram- 
melled and unfettered, to review the whole Scheme in the light 
of 13 years’ experience of its working and to make such changes, 
however drastic, as that experience may have shown to be 
desirable. 
250. As regards the other school of thought, that, namely, 
which holds that in a national scheme of compulsory insurance, 
with uniform contributions, benefits should be payable to all on 
a uniform basis, we think, in the first place, that this would 
be incompatible with administration through Approved Societies, 
whether such Societies were organised as at present or on some 
other basis, e.g., territorial or occupational. In any sound 
system of insurance finance it is obvious that the power to admit 
claims on the fund cannot be bestowed where there is no respon- 
sibility for the solvency of that fund. A uniform rate of benefit 
to all insured persons implies a single fund, and it would be 
administratively and financially indefensible to contemplate such 
a fund being operated upon by independent bodies freed from 
the responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Several 
witnesses who advocated the equalisation of benefits put forward 
as an argument that without it the Scheme could not properly be 
described as ‘* national.”” The word ‘‘ national ’ is, perhaps, one 
to be avoided where precision of thought is desired, as the mean- 
ing attached to it is not itself precise. The mere fact that the Act 
of 1911 was entitled the ‘° National Insurance Act ’’ does not,