HL Deb 14 June 1982 vol 431 cc452-3

2.41 p.m.

Lord Cullen of Ashbourne

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 opticians have responded to the recently increased payments for sight testing and dispensing of spectacles under the National Health Service by reducing the prices of their private charges for tests and frames.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the Department of Health does not specifically monitor the prices opticians charge for private optical services but is aware, from evidence in the professional journals, that in some practices the prices of private frames have been reduced by as much as 20 per cent.

Lord Cullen of Ashbourne

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very welcome Answer and hoping that I am not showing unseemly haste in returning to this subject from my new point of vantage, I should like to ask him whether the excellent example set by some opticians is likely to be followed by others in the future when the current negotiations on underpayments to opticians are concluded, hopefully by the summer recess.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as my noble friend will know, there have been discussions recently between my department and the opticians with regard to certain underpayments which have been made in recent years and, in one small area, a certain overpayment as well. The underpayment amounted altogether to some £70 million. We hope that these discussions will be concluded by the end of this summer and that new charges will thereafter be authorised in respect of the supply of National Health Service spectacles. It is certainly our hope that the subsidy—for it is no less—which up to now has been provided by the private sector for National Health Service supplies will come to an end and that the price of private frames will reflect this.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the price would be reduced universally not by 20 per cent.—which of itself would be satisfactory, if it were universal—but perhaps by 75 per cent. if the Office of Fair Trading which is looking into the monopoly of spectacle supply could work a little more expeditiously, perhaps on a whole-time basis, and could come up with their report rather sooner? Could my noble friend tell the House how soon we can expect a report from the Office of Fair Trading on the spectacle monopoly?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I understand that the Director General expects to publish his report before the end of this year.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, with due respect, consideration of this matter has been two years' delayed since my noble friend assured the House in January 1980 that it would be looked into. Is it really going to take another year for the Office of Fair Trading to report? Is it not because that body—and I have given evidence, among other Peers to it—is manned on a part-time basis? This is so important to the 9 million purchasers of pairs of spectacles in a year that surely a little more speed and expedition can be exercised.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, if I may say so, this is a new departure for the Director-General of Fair Trading. As my noble friend will be aware, the supply of spectacles is a statutory monopoly; that is to say, it can be conducted only by those who are registered with the Opticians' Council. For that reason, the Director-General of Fair Trading has had to approach this matter in a rather different way from his approach to some other inquiries. This is one of the reasons why it has taken as long as it has. However, I am not certain that the dramatic results that my noble friend anticipates from the Director-General's report will materialise in practice.

Forward to