§ 2 and 11. Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Health (1) if an employee in receipt of an industrial pension for pneumoconiosis will be covered by prescription charges;
(2) what consultations he has had with trade unions about industrial diseases and the effect of prescription charges; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonI would refer my hon. Friend to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January and my reply to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) on 13th February. My consultations to date have been with the professions who will be concerned in the operation of the scheme.—[Vol. 756, c. 1587; Vol. 758, c. 298.]
§ Mr. EadieIs my right hon. Friend aware that there are many pneumoconiotics—and I am thinking about miners—who continue to keep working despite their infliction, and that sometimes they can continue to work only because they have medicinal treatment?
§ Mr. RobinsonI am aware of these matters, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the problem of the chronic sick is under active discussion at present.
§ Mr. DeanWhere people suffer from industrial diseases require very frequent prescriptions, is it the intention that they shall be exempt from the charges?
§ Mr. RobinsonI ask the hon. Gentleman to await a further statement, which 226 I shall make as soon as possible, on the whole matter.
§ 18. Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Health whether he will now give a list of the categories of persons exempt from prescription charges.
§ 19. Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health whether he will now state the categories of people who will be exempt from prescription charges.
§ 22. Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Health whether he will now announce the categories of people who will be exempt from prescription charges.
§ 31. Mr. Grieveasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet formulated his proposals for exempting special categories of the population from the prescription charge; and if he will make a statement.
§ 41. Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet decided the categories of people to be exempted from prescription charges.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonI cannot at present add to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January and my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) on 29th February.—[Vol. 756, c. 1587; Vol. 759, c. 416.]
§ Mr. MacmillanCan the Minister say whether there is any truth in the story that the actual method used to identify those who are exempted will mean a considerable delay and that we cannot hope to see the exemption arrangements finalised much before the autumn?
§ Mr. RobinsonNo, Sir. I would rather not go into details at this moment, because my revised proposals are being considered by the professions this week. It is, I repeat, my earnest hope that we shall bring in the charges and the exemptions simultaneously.
§ Mr. DeanCan the Minister give a clear and categorical assurance that the chronic sick will not have to pay prescription charges?
§ Mr. RobinsonI have already referred to the original statement of my right hon. Friend, and I hope to make a further statement very shortly on this point.
§ Mr. FortescueCan the Minister assure the House that the permanently disabled will receive exemptions for drugs needed for their condition?
§ Mr. RobinsonI would have to ask the hon. Gentleman to await my further statement.
§ Mr. GrieveWill the Minister, in devising whatever system of exemptions he has in mind, see that it puts as little administrative burden as possible upon the medical practitioners, who are already under considerable burdens?
§ Mr. RobinsonThat has been one of my intentions from the start.
§ Mr. HuntDoes not the Minister's reply, and the continuing delay in this matter, indicate that there has been a total lack of any preparation and planning by the Government for this?
§ Mr. RobinsonNo, Sir. It would have been unusual to make contingency arrangements for exemption from prescription charges before the decision to reintroduce them was taken.
§ Mr. PavittSince doctors are persistently refusing to have any categories at all, and as one doctor on the negotiating committee has refused to accept anyone on his list other than the chronic sick, and one doctor wants to emigrate, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the whole question and come back to the House with something more considered?
§ Mr. RobinsonI cannot accept the premise of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The answer to the last part of it is "No, Sir".
§ Dr. WinstanleyCan the Minister tell the House what he has in mind for defining the elderly in this connection? In fixing the age, would he bear in mind that the earning capacity of women declines at an earlier age that that of men, and that many women, although not themselves elderly, are frequently financially dependent on elderly men? In other words, will he introduce a differential?
§ Mr. RobinsonExemptions for the elderly are from the age of 65, as was announced originally by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
§ Dr. John DunwoodyWill my right hon. Friend review this rather harsh decision? Does he not think it illogical that women pensioners between 60 and 65 should have to pay prescription charges? Will he look at this again so that all pensioners, men or women, who are in receipt of the old-age pension, are treated in the same way.
§ Mr. RobinsonThe total number of exemptions now envisaged will represent about 50 per cent. of all prescriptions. I do not think that it would be reasonable to extend the category still further.
§ Mr. WoodburnIs my right hon. Friend aware that all this trouble has arisen from a four-year campaign by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make the National Health Service a symbol of national waste?