Reading Glasses: Prices (Hansard, 5 December 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)
My Lords, the sale of reading glasses is a private transaction. It is up to individual opticians who supply these optical appliances to use their commercial judgment and set their prices accordingly. In doing so they will need to take full account of the prices being charged by companies supplying reading glasses. We do not collect details of comparative costs. We have always urged any person needing reading glasses to look around for the supplier offering the most competitive price before deciding a purchase.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the leading optical companies has, since last April when it became legal, sold nearly 1 million pairs of reading spectacles at prices between £3 and £6 per pair? As the price of lenses is now down to £2 and as the public has to pay 10 or 20 times that when buying glasses, is it not time that the Office of Fair Trading took another hard look—its last one was seven years ago—at the arrangement which seems to me to be to the detriment of the public, which pays far more in this country than in any other country in the world?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I believe that the example quoted by my noble friend gives us hope that the price of ready-made spectacles is indeed coming down as an average. However, I am informed 734 that the cost of a lens can vary considerably depending on the requirements of a prescription and the need to grind the lens, or otherwise. The basic price quoted by my noble friend is therefore not necessarily the only price. Any question of a reference to the Office of Fair Trading is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. We have no current plans to ask it to undertake such a study, but I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to my noble friend's remarks.

§ Lord Northfield
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, when she talks about the extra costs of some lenses, those are the rare cases? Is she also aware that the average cost of a pair of lenses for normal presbyopia, which is what most of us suffer as we get older and which requires simple magnification, is between £2 and £4? Is she further aware that the frame usually costs about £10 or £15 from the wholesaler? However, people are not being charged anything near that figure by opticians for such a pair of spectacles. According to the Minister's department last year, they are being charged an average of about £60 a pair. In other words, there is a 300 per cent. or 400 per cent. mark-up on spectacles. Does not this matter merit being referred once again to the Office of Fair Trading, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said? However else shall we make progress against that rip-off?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that presbyopia is recognised as a common condition affecting the eyes from middle age onwards. Regulations were introduced in April this year as a consequence of an amendment to the Health and Medicines Act which allowed the sale of reading glasses to adults without the need for an optical prescription. I believe that the example quoted by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing suggests that sales of ready-made spectacles are increasing and therefore bringing down the average price.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, will the Minister explain why she is answering the Question at all? Does not the decision taken last year to end free sight tests throw the whole issue into the free market, with profits and prices replacing questions of health for millions of members of our population? Does not the real question concern the information about the heavy fall in eye examinations with the consequent failure to diagnose and treat eye complaints such as glaucoma? Does the Minister now feel able to give information about that survey?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that the reason I am answering the Question is that it is on the Order Paper. I said at the outset that the Government consider that the sale of reading glasses is a private transaction and that, an element of competition having been introduced, we must allow market forces to operate. That is precisely what we are doing.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if I were to put a question about the comparable prices of washing liquid or garden furniture, some Minister would answer it?

§ Baroness Hooper
It may well be so, my Lords.

§ Lord Rugby
My Lords, can the noble Baroness state whether it is possible to get by computer a simple refraction test in order to indicate the refraction of each eye, which is not linked to the sale of spectacles or to an unsolicited medical test?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I believe that there are methods of eye testing which do not go so far as our requirements for eye examinations but which can be done by machines. At the moment the Government have no plans to regard those as covering the situation completely.

§ Lord Cullen of Ashbourne
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is better to compare like with like, and that one gets what one pays for?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I have already indicated that the Government are hoping that the competition that is now possible will enable people to shop around and choose the spectacles they want from the wide variety of prices available to them.

§ Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether she considers that the General Optical Council serves any useful purpose, especially as it seems to be comprised almost entirely of opticians and has almost no representation of the interests of consumers?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the General Optical Council has undertaken to carry out a review of optical services in the light of the Secretary of State's decision not to proceed with the two-tier sight test. It is still unclear what this review will encompass, but we believe that it will cover educating the public on the benefits of eye care, the financial benefits to the customer of eye care, the effects of recent legislative changes on the National Health Service, the legal effects of these changes and preparing the profession for Europe in 1992. I understand that the General Optical Council intends to report to the Secretary of State by next summer and therefore I feel that this review will serve a useful purpose.

§ Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, does my noble friend agree in those circumstances that a review of the opticians' practices by the General Optical Council might be considered a review of poachers undertaken by poachers?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, assessment takes place in a number of areas where the description of poachers against poachers could be used, including within the Civil Service.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, did I understand the noble Baroness to say that references to the Office of Fair Trading were made by the DTI? Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, is it not the case that Sir Gordon Borrie, the director general, has his own powers to intervene as and when he thinks fit and then recommend to the DTI references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is not that the true state of affairs?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I referred to the DTI in the context of the Question put to me as a representative of the Department of Health. Anyone may write to Sir Gordon Borrie and ask him to consider undertaking an investigation of the market activities of a company or group of companies; and, as the noble Lord said, the director general himself can initiate action.

§ Lord Mottistone
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Question and many of the supplementary questions asked by those who support the anti-optician campaign are more in the interests of the commercial advantage of companies such as those mentioned in the original Question than in the interests of consumers and the people, who have trouble with their eyes? Does she also agree that the present situation provides a measure of competition, and that there is no need to press this matter further by going back to the Office of Fair Trading or any such body? Does she consider that there is probably more harm being done to the eyes of people in this country as a result of this campaign than is reasonable?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that the different requirements for people's eyes mean that they will need to be satisfied in different ways. In the present situation there is a wide variety of choice available and it is up to the consumer to ensure that he or she gets a good deal.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, will my noble friend take seriously the feeling that the General Optical Council would be respected rather more if it were not made up so obviously of opticians? After 40 years of semi-monopoly, surely the time has come to revise the make-up of that council to include large numbers of consumers who can examine what is needed by the public in this country and such as is enjoyed by members of the public overseas?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I note what my noble friend said; but we are straying a little from the Question on the Order Paper.