Thank you for the comments. I think in my supplementary response to Rhun ap Iorwerth’s first two questions, I tried to set out that we recognise that we are actually saving the sight of more and more people. The challenge is that more and more people need to have the service. There are more and more people coming into our services—it’s about meeting the demand that we have. That’s why we do need to have the sort of system reform that is set out in the Government plans, which has been put together with clinicians. There is no hiding away from that, and I’ve never tried to do that, but I don’t think people should take the view that every single thing said by the questioner necessarily accurately represents the RNIB’s view. For example, on cataract waits, it’s an area where you can wait for a longer period of time without there being clinical harm. If we get lost into saying, ‘Cataract waits must come down as the priority’, we’re potentially then skewing our system in a direction that does not meet clinical need.

Our RTT times are actually falling in ophthalmology, but our challenge is not just are our current RTT measures falling, but actually whether they’re the right and the sort of intelligent measures that we should have to tell us about how successful our service is, and I think there’s a powerful case that they don’t. That’s why I’ve told the service, with the RNIB, that I want to see us having a different approach, to try and have a more intelligent approach to this. We’re already investing in IT to make sure that images are able to be swapped digitally between secondary and primary care, and we’re giving out messages for people to go to their high-street optometrist for eye health care, not to a GP. So, we’re doing much of what the question suggests we should do. The challenges are the pace, the consistency and an intelligent set of performance measures.