HC Deb 13 July 1971 vol 821 cc187-9
2. Mr. Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has now received on the subject of increased charges for spectacles, &c. ; and what replies he has given.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph)

Up to 1st July, about 90 ; but a small number of letters on other subjects also mentioned optical charges. Replies have explained that the increased charges have shifted the burden of cost from the taxpayer to those users who can afford it, and have been accompanied by more liberal arrangements for helping people with limited means.

Mr. Skinner

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the letters which he has received is from the Derbyshire Local Optical Committee which describes the imposition of these new charges as Mafia-like cuts on people who, through no fault of their own, have poor vision? As he subscribes to the policy that higher charges lead to greater individual care and attention, may I ask him to explain how people born with poor sight will have their problem solved?

Sir K. Joseph

I do not think I have expressed a policy judgment such as the hon. Gentleman ascribes to me. I have said that this is an increase only for those who can afford it and that the exemptions have been increased sharply.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Does my right hon. Friend feel that the number of spectacles dispensed will diminish as a result of these charges?

Sir K. Joseph

It is difficult to be sure of future trends. General experience is that there is a fall after an increase in charges followed shortly by a resumption of the normal trend ; and that I expect to happen in this case.

Mr. Bob Brown

Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold to the point of view he expressed some months ago from the Government Front Bench, that increased charges for dental treatment are an incentive to people to take care of their teeth?

Sir K. Joseph

That is a different question on which there is a later Question.

5. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he is reducing the age limit for exemption from dental charges, except for dentures, from 21 years of age to 18 years of age ; when he proposes to introduce legislation ; and what representations he has received on the matter.

Sir K. Joseph

In the absence of compelling clinical reasons for retaining the present age limit, I propose to bring it into line with the current age of majority. This has been explained in reply to representations I have received from a number of individuals and bodies. I cannot yet say when the necessary legislation will be introduced.

Mr. Allaun

Is it not an anomaly that if one breaks a leg or has appendicitis one receives free treatment but if one breaks a tooth or has a tooth infection one has to pay half the cost of the treatment? Are not dentists saying that, far from the age being reduced from 21, it should be raised to 25, because otherwise it will discourage regular dental treatment?

Sir K. Joseph

Both parties have thought it made sense to ask about half the population—

Mr. Orme

Both Front Benches.

Sir K. Joseph

—that is, the adults, to pay something towards their dental treatment. Subject to legislation, I am proposing to reduce the exemption age, because there seems to be no clinical reason for keeping it at 21 as opposed to 18.

Sir G. Nabarro

Does my right hon. Friend recall that it is now six months since he promised me that he would step along the corridor to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and demand an abolition of the purchase tax on toothpaste in order to encourage children to clean their teeth properly? Has he noted that this was omitted from the last Budget? Will he now double along the corridor to get something done?

Sir K. Joseph

My right hon. and learned Friend and I do not behave in that way in demanding things of each other.

Sir G. Nabarro

I wish you would.

Sir K. Joseph

Children are, have been and will be exempted from dental charges.

Dr. Summerskill

Is there not a clinical reason for needing more dental treatment between the ages of 21 and 18 than later in life? It is not a question of the age of majority but a question of dental fact. As dentists have strongly deplored this proposed legislation, should not the Government forthwith abandon it?

Sir K. Joseph

I will read with interest any evidence that the hon. Lady cares to send me to justify her assertion.