View report page

278
(ii.) Written off on account of being un-
collectable.
(iii.) Reason.
(m) Date of Committee's resolution authorising
writing off.
(n) Amount carried forward.
(o) Payments to Cashier.
(i.) Amounts.
(ii.) Date.
(iii.) Receipt No. of Cashier.
(p) Remarks.
From these headings it will be observed that the clerical
work involved over a period of 3½ years to collect
£12 Os. lId. in respect of 435 pairs of spectacles would cost
more than the proportion of the £12 Os. lId. which would
be actually recovered.
The Board of Education on the 11th July last, when
considering the new proposals of the Education Committee
relating to the treatment of eyes wrote as follows:—
“I am to add for the information of the Authority that
as indicated in paragraph 4 of Circular 792, the Board regard
arrangements for the further examination of cases of defective
eyesight as coming under the head of ancillary work
and not under that of medical treatment proper. The question
whether ancillary work as a whole or any particular
form of it is medical treatment within the meaning of the
Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment) Act, is a
question which can only be definitely determined by a Court
of Law, and it is not one on which the Board can express
an authoritative opinion. The Board, however, are disposed
to regard refraction work as not being medical treatment
within the meaning of the Act, and they consider it undesirable
that a charge should be made for it."