Eye Tests: Charges (Hansard, 10 July 1989)

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the information on the number of people receiving sight tests since 1st April 1989 is not yet available. We intend to carry out a survey into numbers later this year when the market has had more time to stabilise.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his rather predictable Answer. Nevertheless, is he aware of disturbing press reports, notably in the Observer, which state that there has been a fall of 40 per cent. in the number of people asking for eye tests? May I also tell him—

Noble Lords
No!

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, may I also point out—

Noble Lords
No!

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, is the noble Lord also aware that I had confirmation of those figures when visiting an optician off Sloane Square, which is not exactly a deprived area? His numbers have fallen dramatically. In his other practice in Wandsworth he is testing only the eyes of those who are exempted. Will the noble Lord give a date for reviewing the situation with a view to exempting 2 pensioners—something asked for in his House and the other place—from what is an unfair and ill-conceived charge?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, we are, of course, aware of the report in the Observer. The evidence at the moment is only anecdotal. We do not accept that charges for sight tests will have any deterrent effect. There is also anecdotal evidence which shows that the number of sight tests increased greatly before 1st April. We have to wait, possibly until the autumn—I cannot give a firm date—before we can conduct any assessment of the numbers of sight tests.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is not that most unsatisfactory? Does the noble Lord doubt the evidence which has come from all parts of the country? A report relating to north London which appeared in my local paper this weekend suggested that evidence from opticians shows a fall of more than 40 per cent. If that is true, does he accept that it is obvious that serious eye diseases are going unidentified? This will have serious consequences for patients and the National Health Service. Why is he so complacent about the matter?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not complacent. The noble Lord would not expect the Government to rely on evidence that is only anecdotal at the moment. I accept that it is likely that numbers are declining, but there is also evidence of an increase immediately before we brought in the charges.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his right honourable friend should take note of the views of opticians' organisations and surgeons inolved in these matters? They fully support what my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has said. Would it not be sensible, in the interest of the people, that the NHS and everyone whose eyesight might be damaged because they cannot afford a test, go to the head of the well, so to speak—the leading professional organisations—to seek their views as to whether the Government have done a bad thing?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I stated in my original Answer, we intend to carry out a survey into numbers later this year when the markets have had more time to stabilise. We do not accept that people cannot afford to have eye tests. Over 40 per cent. of the population are exempt from the charges.

§ Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, does my noble friend have any information as to the number of retail outlets that are now selling reading glasses without prescription since the Government so wisely allowed them to be sold without prescription?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help my noble friend on the number of outlets selling reading glasses without prescription. I shall write to him if I can Find the figures.

§ Lord Kilbracken
My Lords, is the noble Lord so completely out of touch with reality that he imagines having to pay £10 for a sight test will not discourage millions of ordinary men and women from having their eyes looked at?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, no. Ten pounds is not a large amount of money when one considers that a great many people are exempted. That includes children under 16, full-time students under 19, those in receipt of income support or family credit together with others on low incomes who are also exempt, the registered blind or partially sighted, those needing complex lenses, diagnosed diabetics or glaucoma sufferers and parents, brothers, sisters and children aged 40 or over of glaucoma sufferers.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is it being claimed that one has to be poor to be exempted? Evidence from across the country shows that it is mainly those who are poor who are not coming forward for sight tests. Does not that worry the Minister at all? Surely it must do.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I stated that the poor are entitled to free sight tests. We made that clear.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that hospital eye departments are suffering increased pressure because GPs are sending their poorer patients to them to have their eyes tested? What does he think should be done about that?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, GPs should not be sending people to hospitals for routine eye tests. And the hospital eye service should not accept such people as patients purely for routine eye tests.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, is the Minister aware that GPs are doing that in order to save poorer patients paying the charge?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, poorer patients do not have to pay. I cannot make that any clearer. I read out a list of those people who are exempt from the charges: it includes those on income support, family credit or covered by other low income arrangements.