MAJORITY REPORT. | — £30,000 was spent in the year. It is not a costly benefit, the average charge per case being, we are told, about 15s. While there is a general consensus of opinion as to its value we have encountered, especially in the professional evidence, a strong conflict of opinion as to the method by which it should be pro- vided. The British Medical Association (App. XLVI, App. C; Q. 15,006, 15,116-15,117, 15,145-15,154), the Council of British Ophthalmologists (App. LXIII, 2-3; Q. 17,777-17,778) and the Ophthalmic Benefit Committee (App. LXIV, 3-7; Q. 17,940 and 17,955) insist that in any case of ocular disorder or visual defect the benefit should only be available on the recommendation of a medical man basing their contention on the intimate connexion between the state of the eye and the general health of the body. They submit that the training of the general practitioner fits him to determine whether this recommendation should be made, and that for the purpose of dealing with any cases requiring special advice or treatment there is a sufficiently large number of medical men with training or experience in ophthalmology adequately covering the whole country. On the other hand the Institute of Ophthalmic Opticians (App. LX, 14-21; Q. 17,491-17,495, 17,506- 17,507, 17,510), the Joint Council of Qualified Opticians (App. 1.XI, 27-32; Q. 17,698, 17,677-17,689, 17,694-17,697) and the British Optical Association (App. LXII; Q. 17,717 and 17,723) have urged that direct access to the optician should be allowed as in the case of the dentist, and have supported their argument by drawing attention to the training now required by these organisa- tions and by citing the evidence of medical men. They also contend that ‘¢ the medical practitioner’s knowledge of optics is not iso thorough as that of the optician ”’ (J.C.Q.O., Q. 17,660), and while admitting the superior skill of the ophthalmic surgeon state that the number of such surgeons would be inadequate for coping with the work. We feel that this is a very contentious matter, on which it is difficult for laymen to pass judgment. But we understand that the Ministry of Health, acting on the advice of their medical advisers, have taken the view that the medical practitioner must intervene and in this conclusion we think we must concur. For a full statement of the views of the Ministry of Health on this difficult problem we refer to the reply by Dr. Smith Whitaker to Q. 23,956. 89. We are also informed that it has been clearly laid down by the Ministry and accepted by the medical profession that any work which might be involved in recommending a case as proper for the receipt of this benefit is included within the scope of the obligation already imposed on insurance practitioners towards the insured persons on their lists, and that consequently no question of any increased cost to the insured person obtaining the recom- mendation can arise (Ministry of Health, App. I, C, 67). Where such a recommendation has been granted or forwarded to the approved society, it is for that body to decide what steps shall be