HL Deb 15 January 1996 vol 568 cc357-9

2.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:

What will be the annual cost to public funds of implementing the decision of the European Court in the Richardson case on the implementation by the United Kingdom of European Directive 79/7/EEC in respect of free prescriptions for men from the age of 60.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)

My Lords, we estimate that the cost of giving free prescriptions to men between the ages of 60 and 65 is about £40 million a year.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that factual Answer. Is it not therefore a fact that, without any decision by either House of the British Parliament or the British Government, this change is being effected in quite an expensive aspect of our social security system merely at the dictation of the European Court of Human Rights?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, the directive was agreed by the United Kingdom in 1978, when a Labour Government was in power. We signed up to the European Union, and the European Court is part of that. It has final jurisdiction in these matters and we accept the ruling of the Court.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that during discussions in both another place and in this House there was no mention that Directive 79/7/EEC would apply to matters such as prescription charges? It was meant to apply only to social security matters. Therefore, without being told the purpose, the other place was forced by the Court's decision to levy taxation of £l40 million on a continuing basis without having given its express opinion on the matter. As the noble Baroness will be aware, and as no doubt she can confirm, if this had been a decision of a British court, Parliament could have altered the decision. However, because it is European law we are not permitted to do so. Is it not about time that Parliament revised and amended Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to give us back that power?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that that was precisely why we contested the case. We felt that the arrangements were outside the scope of the EC directive. However, the Court ruled otherwise. We accepted that ruling and took immediate steps to implement it.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the acceptance of the ruling involves acceptance of the European Court being able to decide rates of benefit in our social security system in this country? If that is really my noble friend's view of the state of the arrangements, is it not time that they were altered?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, we have to comply with the European Court ruling.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Why?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, we cannot renege on the original commitments that we made when we signed the declaration joining the European Union. The Court has ruled that way. As I said, we contested it and fought a hard battle. However, the Court did not find in our favour. As we comply with the law, we have accepted the ruling and have taken immediate steps to implement it.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction from patients, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical profession about the way in which prescription charges are levied? Many of them consider that there are people over the age of 60 who could well afford to pay for their prescriptions. Is the Department of Health reviewing the matter? That may be a way of getting round the problem.

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, we reviewed prescription charges in 1993. At that time we decided not to alter the categories of exemption. I think that it is very unlikely that we would review them again.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it was honouring the principle of equal treatment for men and women that led us down the path which has been agreed in the treaty? The British Government decided that, in fairness to women, rather than increasing the age at which women have to pay for prescription charges to 65, it should be brought down to 60 for men. It was a decision by the British Government in order to promote more fairness.

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the men in this country should rejoice in our decision.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, the overall concerns about rising prescription costs surely have more to do with the fact that the Government are not doing enough to achieve effective prescribing by doctors. Does the Minister recall the National Audit Commission's report which stated that over £400 million could be saved if the Government were to encourage general practitioners to achieve more effective prescribing?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness is right that there are doctors who could prescribe more effectively. However, it is interesting to note that those doctors who became fund-holders after the NHS reforms which we introduced have been shown to he more effective prescribers.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this issue is far more important than whether there should be equality of treatment between men and women on prescription charges? The important issue is whether the European Court of Justice should be able to impose on the House of Commons the necessity to raise tax without the House of Commons having first being told.

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, I am very aware that that is the view of some Members of your Lordships' House. But as my noble friend Lady Elles said, we have signed up to the Treaty of Rome; and it is quite right that we should comply with decisions of the European Court.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, would this case ever have arisen if the Labour Government had bitten the bullet as regards equalisation of pension ages?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, I doubt it.