MAJORITY REPORT. 
i 
(f) treatment in convalescent homes; (g) home-nursing when 
required ; (h) all other necessary medical advice and treatment.” 
Dr. Harry Roberts, a practitioner in the East End of 
London with a large insurance practice, gave similar evidence 
which impressed us both by its quality and as representing the 
considered views of one who is in close daily contact with the 
problem in its most difficult form. He refers (App. LI, 14, 
Q. 16,117) to ‘‘ the limitation of provided medical treatment 
to such as is assumed to be within the range of an average general 
practitioner *’ as being ‘‘ one of the principal limitations of utility 
of the present medical service.’’ 
63. Other medical bodies and practitioners have spoken before 
us to the same effect, and it is evident that the weight of the 
professional evidence is in favour of a removal of the restriction 
which seems to be inherent in the arrangements under the 
present Statute. 
64. Turning to the non-professional witnesses we find the 
same trend of opinion very strongly indicated. The Hearts of 
Oak Benefit Society (App. IV, 254, Q. 3544-3546) recommend 
the inclusion of a specialist medical service as part of medical 
benefit, and (App. IV, 284, Q. 3549-3551) the provision of at 
least 50 per cent. of the cost of dental benefit for all insured 
persons. The Ancient Order of Foresters (App. V, 37-44 ; 46-49) 
and the Independent Order of Oddfellows (Manchester Unity) 
(App. VII, 53-61) make similar recommendations. 
65. The Joint Committee of Approved Societies state (App. 
XIV, 24, Q. 8723) that they ‘‘ desire to see the benefit given by 
the Act of 1911 fully conferred upon the insured, i.e., adequate 
medical attendance and treatment and not the restricted form 
of (domiciliary) medical benefit defined by the Regulations.’ 
The National Conference of Friendly Societies, representing over 
four million insured persons, urge (App. XXVI, 22, Q. 10,913-20) 
that ‘‘ until a public medical service can be instituted medical 
benefit should be extended to include the provision of specialist 
and consultant services.” The National Association of Trade 
Union Approved Societies submit (App. XCII, 94) ‘ that the 
term ‘ medical benefit ’° should mean everything that medical 
and surgical science can command for the prevention or cure of 
sickness.”” The evidence from Insurance Committees and their 
representative bodies is to the same effect. Witnesses giving 
evidence before us on behalf of the Central Departments 
also agreed as to the desirability of extending the provision so as 
to include a specialist and consultant service if the difficulties of 
finance could be overcome. (See Kinnear, Q. 23,682-23,686 ; 
Leishman, Q. 24,337-24,340.) Finally we may quote an extract 
from the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the 
Ministry of Health, 1924 (p. 163). In concluding his survey