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