HC Deb 17 December 1964 vol 704 cc581-4
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson)

I wish to make a statement about the Government's intentions regarding National Health Service charges.

First, prescription charges. These comprise the ordinary 2s. charge for prescriptions and charges for elastic hosiery, which are payable both by the patients of general practitioners and by hospital out-patients, together with the charges payable by hospital out-patients for certain appliances.

With effect from 1st February next, we propose to abolish all these charges which, since 1952, have created a financial barrier between the patient and the treatment he needs.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are starting at once the necessary consultations with the professions on amendment of their terms of service, with a view to making regulations for this purpose when the House reassembles after the Christmas Recess. Until 1st February, the existing charges will continue to be payable.

There will remain the charges for dental treatment and appliances and those for spectacles. It is our aim to abolish these charges also, in due course, by means of legislation which will revoke the statutory powers authorising the levy both of these charges and of prescription charges.

It will not be possible to introduce such legislation during the current Session.

Mr. Wood

Is the Minister aware that any suggestions for improving the methods for relieving from the charges those who would find it difficult or impossible to pay them would have the wholehearted support of the Opposition? Will he agree that the former Minister of Health, Mr. Barber, earlier this year, was working precisely to this end?

Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that, among all the needs of the Health Service, he and the Government are prepared to give a very high priority to relieving from the charges those who, quite frankly, are well able to pay them?

Further, can he give any estimate of the increase in the number of subscriptions which this will cause and, particularly, can he assure us that the doctors will be able to cope with the increased load in the middle of the winter?

Mr. Robinson

The Government have given priority to implementing a specific election pledge which represents and reflects Labour Party policy consistently over a period of 12 years. We have never believed that taxation of the sick is an appropriate method of financing the Health Service. It may well be that my predecessor was working on some other scheme, but I note that we do not have the support of the Opposition in abolishing prescription charges completely.

There will, in all probability, be some increase in the number of subscriptions, which it is impossible to quantify at the moment, but there will also, I hope, be some reduction in the amounts prescribed by doctors now that they no longer have any need to consider the ability of their patients to pay the prescription charges.

I am aware that some doctors are anxious about the possibility of an increased work load. I believe that their fears in this respect are exaggerated but, in so far as they will he meeting a need that has hitherto been deterred from emerging by the charges, I am sure that they will accept this load, and welcome it.

Mr. Woodburn

As one of the two Ministers who negotiated the introduction of the National Health Service, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the medical practitioners and those in the medical services insisted that no obstacle should be placed in the way of the medical practitioner giving what was required for the health of the patient; and that any breach of that was a breach of the original conditions for the introduction of the Service?

Is my right hon. Friend also aware that from 1912 most of our workers had free medicine and free prescriptions, with no abuse of doctors, or objection from the doctors in treating them, and that if any objections have come later it is because, unfortunately, of a minority of people who have been prepared to take advantage of the scheme in order to bring discredit on it, by overprescribing, or by abuse in other directions?

Mr. Robinson

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It is the fact that for more than 10 years the medical profession has opposed prescription charges, and that only on a single occasion—the annual representative meeting of the British Medical Association early this summer—did they reverse their policy.

Mr. Lubbock

While congratulating the Minister on the abolition of these charges, may I ask why it has been impossible to remove the charges on dental treatment at the same time? Is he aware that the present charges deter patients from seeking treatment on a regular basis? If it is not possible to introduce legislation during this Session, would he find some means of varying the incidence of these charges so that those seeking treatment regularly are not made to pay the most for the treatment?

Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the administrative saving that will result from the abolition of prescription charges?

Mr. Robinson

Perhaps I may deal with the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question first. It is difficult to estimate the precise administrative savings, but to set against the lost gross revenue from charges there is the amount of just under £3 million representing National Assistance Board refunds to patients who qualify for refund on grounds of hardship, which will no longer be payable.

As to the other part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I can only repeat, as I have said in the statement, that it is our aim to abolish all the charges in due course. We shall do this as soon as practicable.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Is my right hon. Friend aware, first, of the very great welcome we on this side of the Chamber give to his announcement and, secondly, of the value this will be to old people and the chronic sick who have been most hard hit by the charges? Those who do not receive any Assistance Board payments, and there are many of them, will be particularly helped by the new arrangements.

Lord Balniel

While welcoming policies designed to bring benefits to people really in need—the chronic sick or the elderly—may I ask whether the Minister is really satisfied that this step, which will bring benefits to people of whom some are not really in need, is a higher priority than spending an additional £20 million, for instance, on improving the care of the mentally handicapped, the domiciliary services, or the hospital building programme? As Minister in charge of the National Health Service, is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that this is the highest priority that he can think of?

Mr. Robinson

There are, of course, a number of things we need to do and would like to do in the National Health Service which were left undone by previous Governments. I can only say that, apparently, the previous Government tried to find some suitable methods of relieving solely those who suffered from hardship from prescription charges, but were unable to do so. We prefer to take this first major step towards restoration of the free Health Service which the Labour Government introduced after the war.

Dr. David Kerr

Will my right hon. Friend note that the satisfaction expressed particularly on this side at his statement will be shared by a number of forward-looking doctors, as well as by the patients whom they are treating? Will he also note that the low morale induced in the whole Health Service by the deprivations of 13 years of neglect demand from us all a responsible attitude to the development of the Service, and that we all look to this as the first hopeful beginning?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate this now.