172 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
limitations is, except for one single function, a pure farce. That 
exception is the Medical Service Sub-Committee, which performs 
useful work. Apart from this, however, it is impossible to see 
anything whatever for the Insurance Committees to do that 
could not be equally well accomplished by a subordinate official 
in the local Public Health Office (App. XIII, 21-29).. He 
contends that the insured persons’ representatives on the Com- 
mittees are, in fact, nominated by the larger Approved Societies, 
and that there is thus no real representation of insured persons. 
(See also Q. T452, T7125, T766-T768, 7775-7785.) Dr. Harry 
Roberts gave evidence on similar lines. He says (Q. 16,120) that he 
“« would like to see Insurance Committees either abolished or, 
at least, their constitution entirely altered, because they are 
now but another name for Approved Societies. For all practical 
purposes they are the chairmen and secretaries of the Approved 
Societies, which was not the original purpose of the Act. The 
insured person is not represented on them in any way whatever.” 
The Society of Medical Officers of Health (App. LVL, 7; Q. 
16,941, 17,100-17,101), while admitting that Insurance Com- 
mittees ** have done well according to their abilities and oppor- 
tunities,’ state that the Committees have certain general public 
duties, but have failed to be efficient instruments in the promo- 
tion of better health conditions. The Society think that *‘ Insur- 
ance Committees are, as separate bodies corporate, no longer 
required. Their duties would be more efficiently carried out 
by the local health authority . . .” Mr. Torrance giving 
evidence on behalf of the Ancient Order of Foresters (Q. 
4308-4309) states that Insurance Committees do not, under 
present conditions, justify their existence. The Hearts of Oak 
Benefit Society (App. IV, 285-293) suggest the retention of the 
Insurance Committees and would regret the loss of the experi- 
ence gained in matters relating to medical benefit during the 
last 13 years. The National Conference of Industrial Assurance 
Approved Societies (App. VI, 26; Q. 5448-5449), the Manchester 
Unity of Oddfellows (Q. 6053-6056) and the Rational Association 
Friendly Society (App. IX, 34; Q. 6651-6653) also support the 
retention of Insurance Committees. The National Association 
of Trade Union Approved Societies (App. Xl, 151-156; Q. 
92,077-22,078) favour the formation of a committee of each local 
authority with certain representative persons co-opted to under- 
take the local administration of medical benefit. The evidence 
of Sir Wm. Glyn Jones (App. CVI; Q. 24398-24532) indicates 
the difficulties which hamper the work of Insurance Committees 
in their administration of medical benefit, and which, in his 
view, make it impossible to expand the scope of that benefit 
whilst its administration is in their hands. In conclusion, we 
may refer to the evidence given on behalf of the Ministry of 
Health by Mr. Brock (Q. 23,974-23,990), who states that ¢ the 
duties devolving upon Insurance Committees (as distinguished