MAJORITY REPORT. 
I) 
ay 
or private income ; 3,900 on the ground of dependence on another 
person; 300 on account of dependence on another occupation ; 
4,600 under the temporary provisions of the Act of 1919, and 
less than 100 on the score of intermittent employment. Tt will be 
seen, therefore, that the bulk of the cases are those in which 
the claim is made on the ground of pension or private income of 
£26 a year or more. 
598. Where a certificate of exemption is granted, it in no way 
operates to relieve the employer of his liability to pay what would 
have been his appropriate share of the contribution had the 
employed person not received exemption. Contributions are thus 
paid in respect of exempt persons, but by the employer only. In 
respect of these contributions the exempt person becomes entitled 
to receive Medical Benefit, and we understand that the majority 
take advantage of this benefit. 
529. Three points arise for consideration— 
(1) Whether the class should be abolished altogether, so 
that these persons would fall into the same category as 
ordinary insured persons. 
(2) Whether the requirement to pay the employer’s share 
of the contribution should be abolished, with the effect of 
placing exempt persons in the same position as those of the 
excepted classes. 
(3) Whether, continuing the present system, the arrange- 
ments under the 1911 Act, under which no benefit at all was 
given to these persons, should be reverted to, and the con- 
tributions collected in respect of them otherwise applied. 
530. The Hearts of Oak Benefit Society suggest the retention 
of the class and the withdrawal of Medical Benefit, the contri- 
butions payable in respect of exempt persons being applied to- 
wards the cost of Medical Benefit for the dependants of insured 
persons (App. IV, 20-24; Q. 2571-2575). The Manchester Unity 
of Oddfellows suggest the amendment of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 
Act, which gives a title to exemption to persons in receipt of a 
Pension or private income of £26 or more, but express the 
opinion that if the class is retained there would be some 
justification for considering the withdrawal of the right to 
medical benefit. (App. VII, 73-74; Q. 5903-5905). « The 
National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies suggest 
the repeal of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act (App. XCIIL, 75; 
Q. 21,857 and 21,914). The Scottish Board of Health think that 
there is no justification for this special class, that exempt per- 
sons have little claim for consideration, but that Medical Benefit 
18 valued by them (Leishman, Q. 1554-1563). The view of the 
Ministry of Health is set out in the replies of Sir Walter Kinnear