[

J)

MAJORITY REPORT.

** would not recommend any step which would involve increased
contributions or increased taxation.” The Manchester Unity of
Oddfellows (Q. 5784, 5790) think that ‘* the contribution at the
present time is just as high as the ordinary working man can
afford to pay.” The National Federation of Rural Approved
Societies (App. XXIX, 19; Q. 11,407-11,418) state that any
increase of the contribution would not be acceptable either to
employers or to insured persons. IHinally, the Scottish Board
of Health say that, having regard to the industrial situation of
the country, ‘‘ it appears to the Board that an addition to the
present insurance contribution, for however good an object such
an addition might be, would be found extremely difficult and
practically impossible to obtain ’’ (App. CV, 9). In oral evidence
 Sir James Leishman added: ‘‘ The condition of the
country, and I am speaking specially for Scotland, although I
suppose 1t would apply to England, is from the industrial and
economic point of view serious. Public burdens are very heavy.
There has been a recent Act put on the Statute Book which will
come into operation at the beginning of the year which, in effect,
adds to the insurance contribution. Having regard to all these
considerations the Board, which has given very careful and
sustained consideration to the terms of reference of this Commission,
 thought they could not put forward any proposition
which involved an extra contribution just now ’’ (Q. 24,324).
“ If you take Scotland especially . . . coal and iron have
been very bad ; engineering has been bad ; shipbuilding has been
bad and shipping is bad. There are one or two things such as
whisky and linoleum which are better. But, broadly speaking,
Scotland is possibly even harder hit in some respects than
England. We have had to take into account that point of
view ’ (Q. 24,325).

GENERAL CONCLUSION.

151. In concluding this brief review of the present financial
burden of the social services, we desire to make it clear that we do
rot in any way deprecate or condemn either the volume or the
application of that expenditure. A civilised nation must carry the
burdens of civilisation ; and prosperity—even material prosperity
—fulfils itself in many ways. America, for example, though
devoting great resources to public education and other general
services, makes little or no public provision for social insurance.
Being able to pay high rates of wages in consequence of her
unique economic position, she leaves the provision against the
individual casualties of life to the personal and voluntary effort of
her workers. Our country, on the other hand, has chosen, and
rightly as we think, to make several great schemes of social
insurance an integral and permanent part of the national life.
But while this principle may be accepted, it is clearly essential
that a balance between the expenditure on these schemes and