HL Deb 24 July 1980 vol 412 cc509-11

3.10 p.m.

Lord RUGBY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the combined function of testing eyesight and dispensing spectacles within one business establishment is open to abuse.

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

My Lords, the majority of sight-tests and dispensings of spectacles are carried out under National Health Service provisions, and we have no evidence to suggest that the combination of these functions within one business establishment is open to abuse. But if the noble Lord has any evidence of this, perhaps he would kindly let me know.

Lord RUGBY

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. I believe there is widespread dismay at the fact that people hear only the voice of the General Optical Council. Would he ensure that the voice of the public is properly heard when the Office of Fair Trading conducts its investigations, which I believe it is about to do?

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

Yes, my Lords. I think that the noble Lord is going back, by a different route, to a point which we debated on 30th January, when he was concerned about the cost of spectacles. But, in fact, as I said at the time, the position is that we have referred this to the Office of Fair Trading. We hoped to have a reply by 30th April. I understand that it will not now come for another two months.

Lord SEGAL

My Lords, can the noble Lord say what fee is received by the eyesight testing optician? Also, would he not agree that this examination is sometimes totally unnecessary in cases where the patient has already received the prescription through having his eyes tested by a fully qualified ophthalmic surgeon, whose qualifications are very much higher than those of registered opticians?

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

My Lords, the noble Lord is much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, and I am sure that what he says is right.

Lord SEGAL

But, my Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this is an example where the present procedure is subject to abuse, and that it is totally unnecessary to have two eyesight examinations done, when one is quite sufficient?

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

My Lords, as I said, the whole matter is in front of the Office of Fair Trading. I doubt whether we can take this matter any further until they report.

Lord CROOK

My Lords, is it not a fact that, if there is any abuse at all, it arises from the incorporation by a great chain of departmental stores into their establishments' commercial material of offices where eyes can be tested?

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

Yes, my Lords. I am sure that is true.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that one of the greatest areas of abuse is the supply of frames? Would the noble Lord agree, on reflection, that it was possibly not a good thing in this connection to abolish the Price Commission?

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

My Lords, the noble Lord is taking us back to the debate which we had in January, when we went into the whole question of the expense of frames in great detail. This is a matter which the Office of Fair Trading is examining.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the burden of this service might be reduced if, in cases where a person has perfect sight in one eye and defective sight in the other, it would be much cheaper to issue him with a monocle than with an ordinary pair of spectacles?

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

My Lords, that is a brilliant idea.