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