§ 11.10 a.m.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy 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 why, in the case of many patent medicines and drugs, they accept self-medication which could lead to conditions 925 remaining improperly diagnosed, but refuse to accept similar personal freedom and self-medication in the case of those who would like to be able to purchase simple reading spectacles over the counter, as has long been possible in the USA and other countries.
§ Lord Cullen of AshbourneMy Lords, the controls which govern the supply of medicines and spectacles are designed to protect patients. The differences between the controls in each of these fields reflect the different considerations which apply. In the case of medicines, the Government, on the advice of the Medicines Commission, decided that people should continue to have the right to purchase freely universally accepted remedies to treat the everyday symptoms experienced by us all. In the case of spectacles, the Government considered that the optimum correction of an individual's eyesight could not be achieved by a standard form of spectacles and that a patient's defect of sight should be corrected by a personal prescription determined by a suitably qualified practitioner.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, I wonder whether I might draw his attention to the letter which the Minister wrote to me personally where he said:
Medical opinion is that wearing the 'wrong' spectacles or indeed not wearing spectacles when you need them cannot damage sight or harm the eyes".If that is so, why is a person not at liberty to go and buy, according to a prescription which he has already obtained, spectacles in shops, just as he can in the United States, and in any other country, save here? The Minister now having departed from his position that it could harm the eyes and put the health of the people at risk, in future I hope that the Department of Trade will tackle this restrictive practice and that the Office of Fair Trading will make sure that the public are not held to ransom by the present arrangements.
§ Lord Cullen of AshbourneMy Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point very well. Of course it does not harm the eyes if one wears the wrong spectacles; one may get a headache, but it will not harm one's eyes. On the other hand, as I have said many times before in the interchanges that we have had on the spectacle front, it is a great advantage to have your eyes tested by a qualified man in order to see that you have not started some incipient disease to the eyes, diabetes or hypertension. Of course, the main worry is glaucoma. As regards the Department of Trade, as I think my noble friend knows, my honourable friend Mrs. Oppenheim is anxious to have a review of the Opticians Act in co-operation with the Office of Fair Trading and is at present in communication with my honourable friend the Minister for Health.
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, on this matter. Anyone who has to pay—
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords, I apologise. Is the noble Lord aware that anyone who goes privately to a specialist is absolutely ruined when it comes to what he has to pay? Perhaps I could show the House what I have purchased from Boots, which is a very mild type of magnifying glass which costs £1.35. Noble Lords must have noticed that I use this the whole time. I have been to specialists and I have paid all that money, but if Boots can produce this, why should we not have spectacles sold over the counter? This item costs £1.35.
§ Lord Cullen of AshbourneMy Lords, I think that I answered that question when I answered my noble friend's question, saying that it was important to have one's eyes tested in order to ensure that one does not have some incipient disease.
§ Lord CrookMy Lords, does the Minister recall that spectacles were sold at Woolworth's for 6d a pair and at ordinary watchmakers, chemists and so on? The result of that was that in 1949 the late Aneurin Bevan appointed a committee of inquiry to report on all these matters and appointed a Member of your Lordships' House as the chairman. After three years it reported very clearly about spectacles which were used not only for reading but, let us be clear, for a variety of other purposes, including driving a motorcar with the possibility of causing danger to the public. Does the noble Lord not recall that, although the report of that three-year inquiry could not be made to the same Government because the Conservatives had ousted the Labour Party at the end of 1951, in 1952 the Conservative Party had the good sense to do everything it could to introduce the safeguards in the interests of the public?
§ Lord Cullen of AshbourneMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and, of course, the House will realise that the Member of your Lordships' House who presided over that committee was, in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Crook, himself.
The Earl of HalsburyMy Lords, having obtained a pair of spectacles through the orthodox channels, having been reassured that I do not suffer from glaucoma or diabetes, and having dropped the aforesaid spectacles and broken them, why should I not be allowed to go to Boots and buy a replacement?
§ Lord Cullen of AshbourneMy Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is sensible enough always to have a spare pair of spectacles with him and, no doubt, will have his prescription on him as well. If he takes the prescription to any optician—and quite a number of other places nowadays where they have qualified practitioners—he will be able to get another pair.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, is my noble friend's argument about having medical tests—whether they be barium meals, x-rays, or something else—a good thing? Of course they are a good thing, but such tests are expensive for the National Health Service; and no other nation has followed this procedure which was set up, I think, mistakenly, nearly a third of a century ago. We must come in line and save money for the 927 public by having greater freedom. In view of the Government's desire that at least opticians should be allowed to display the prices of spectacles in their windows, which up to now has been forbidden by the kangaroo courts operated by them, can my noble friend say what progress has been made and how many opticians are now displaying prices according to the Government's desire?
§ Lord Cullen of AshbourneMy Lords, as my noble friend knows, on 1st May the ban on displaying prices was rescinded by the General Optical Council. A number of opticians are displaying prices, but I certainly could not tell the noble Lord how many.