| LR 
i 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
involve the separation of administrative and financial responsi- 
bility, a result which could not, in our opinion, be defended. This 
is a serious consideration and one involving more than a mere 
change of method in the administration of the Health Insurance 
system. We feel that it is to the public advantage that this 
great Scheme should be administered by the representatives 
of the insured persons themselves, and that the governing 
bodies should have that full responsibility for the results of their 
own activities without which it is as hopeless as it would be 
unreasonable to look for a high standard of efficiency and vigil- 
ance. In this connexion we realise that there are features of 
the system which must appear to many as defects, and that these 
cannot be eradicated from it. On the other hand we cannot dis- 
regard the consideration that opinion as to faults and defects in 
a Scheme of this kind is largely a matter of the individual stand- 
point, and that what amounts in the eyes of some to a flaw will 
commend itself to others as an element of equity and justice. 
Tt is clear that if effect is to be given to the views of one school 
of thought, acute dissatisfaction will be aroused in the minds of 
those who hold the contrary opinion and regard the present 
machinery as equitable in its operation. We do not ourselves 
think that the best interests either of the State or of the insured 
population would be served by a vast amalgamation of all the 
resources of the Scheme in a common fund administered from the 
centre, and for the reason given we are satisfied that such an 
amalgamation would create as much discontent as it would allay. 
From this point of view, therefore, we have come to the con- 
clusion that a system of self-governing bodies is to be preferred 
and should be retained. 
292. As to the other type of criticisms, the substantive plea 
behind which is that the system of administration through the 
Approved Societies is open to so many objections that some new 
method of administration should be substituted for it, we have 
to take note of the fact that the Approved Societies are in 
possession of the field, by the action of Parliament, that they 
have their organisations widely distributed over the whole of 
the country and their staffs trained in the details of what, in 
many respects, is an intricate piece of social administration. 
The onus of showing that the system, either from causes 
inherent in itself, or from personal shortcomings of those 
by whom it is operated, works so imperfectly that it ought 
to be abolished, rests upon those who take this view. We have 
considered their evidence with care, and, we trust, without bias. 
We have also reviewed the evidence given to us by the large 
number of officials who have appeared before us as representing 
the Societies, and we have studied their attitude of mind in 
their relations with the insured person and their work generally 
as revealed to us by the answers given to the many questions 
which we have put to them. In the result we have come to the