MAJORITY REPORT. 
(the Act) has made itself felt throughout the whole of the 
industrial population.” (Brock Q. 23,856.) 
93. While the general principles of the Scheme are thus 
accepted, and indeed approved by most of the witnesses who 
appeared before us, we have found a considerable volume of 
criticism directed against certain aspects of the operation of the 
Act, as disclosed in the results of thirteen years’ experience. It 
may be permissible in this Chapter to summarise and review 
with the utmost brevitly the points to which such criticism has in 
the main been directed, reserving for later discussion a more 
detailed consideration of the critical arguments advanced. 
Tur SCOPE OF THE SCHEME AND THE SOURCES OF REVENUE. 
94. Tn the first place, it may be observed that apart from the 
suggestions as to the lowering of the age at which insurance 
should begin, to which reference is made in Section A of Chapter 
XIII, we have had little criticism of the scope of the Scheme 
so far as concerns the persons included in it. Most of the 
witnesses were, moreover, practically at one in their approval of 
the present method of deriving the revenue, that is to say, by 
means of compulsory contributions from employers and workers 
with a proportionate contribution from the National Exchequer; 
though it may be observed that the National Confederation of 
Employers’ Organisations pressed strongly for a reduction of the 
contribution and the assignment of a larger proportion of the cost 
than hitherto to the State (App. CVID. 
THE SCALE OF THE BENEFITS. 
25. On the *‘ cash » side, criticism was directed from some 
quarters towards the present limitation of the money benefits 
and, in particular, an unfavourable comparison was instituted 
with the more generous scale of benefit under the Unemployment 
Insurance Scheme. On the other hand, this view was 
contested by many substantial witnesses on the grounds that 
the additional cash benefits now given by many Societies 
mitigated any insufficiency in the standard rates of benefit, 
and that, in any case, it was socially desirable to leave part 
of the field open to be covered by voluntary insurance. The fact 
that the maternity benefit was almost; entirely absorbed by the 
doctor's or midwife’s fees was also the subject of general 
comment. . On the“ health * side there was an almost 
unanimous opinion that extension of the scope of medical benefit 
to cover something more than general practitioner treatment was 
desirable and necessary, and many witnesses pressed on us the 
need for linking up more effectively the medical provision under 
the Scheme with the numerous other forms of public provision 
for promoting health and preventing disease. A very large part