MAJORITY REPORT. 
Sr 
Dr. Harry Roberts.—*‘ In my experience there can be no ques- 
tion as to the enormous advantage to insured persons resulting 
from the medical provisions of the Insurance Act *’ (App. LI, 5; 
Q. 16,136). 
The Retail Pharmacists’ Union.—*‘ Taking into consideration 
the enormous number of prescriptions dispensed, and bearing in 
mind that in no sense is an insured person obliged to go to any 
particular chemist, the number of complaints against the 
chemists’ service has been almost negligible ’ (App. LXV, 21). 
““ From every point of view the arrangements for the supply of 
drugs and appliances through chemists have been successful. . . . 
Insured persons have benefited very greatly by the arrangements 
for medical benefit ** (App. LXV, 79, 81). 
The General Council of Panel Chemists (Scotland).—** The 
relationship between practitioners and pharmacists is one of 
mutual respect and confidence and helpful co-operation. The 
matters . . . . needing amendment are relatively few and 
are mentioned with a view to their elimination so that a service 
already on the whole satisfactory may be brought still nearer 
to the ultimate ideal ** (App. LXIX, 28). 
The Sons of Temperance Friendly Society.—‘‘ The medical 
service rendered by panel practitioners is considered generally 
satisfactory so far as it may be given within the definition of 
range of service ”’ (App. LXXXIX, 41). ‘‘ The medical service 
has improved very much upon what it was originally . . 
1 believe the medical profession as a whole are doing the best 
they can for insured persons’ (Q. 21,534). 
The National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies. 
—¢“ The Medical Profession as a whole has rendered competent 
and conscientious service to insured persons *’ (App. XCII, 76; 
Q. 22,039). 
69. Adverse criticisms of the system have naturally been 
received (see e.g., National Medical Union, App. XLIX and 
Scottish Medical Guild, App. 1), but the examination of wit- 
nesses did not convince us that, in the system taken as a whole, 
there is anything seriously amiss apart, of course, from the limita- 
tion of the scope of the benefit, with which we have already dealt. 
Some reference was also made by certain witnesses (Joint Com- 
mittee of Approved Societies, Q. 8026-8028, 8040-8041) to the 
standard of the Insurance Medical Service in London, which was 
stated to compare disadvantageously with that throughout the 
country as a whole. We questioned the representative of the 
London Insurance Committee on the subject (Q. 22,842, 22,899- 
92.900), but we were not able to obtain any specific evidence as 
to the foundation on which this general impression of the 
inferiority of the service in London was based. We may, how- 
ever. refer in this connexion to the statement of Mr. Brock