HL Deb 18 March 1996 vol 570 cc1065-6

2.43 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why they did not seek parliamentary approval of their decision to apply the decision of the European Court of Justice that the age of eligibility for free prescription drugs for men should be lowered to 60.

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, the Government's decision to lower the age of eligibility to 60 was implemented by means of a negative instrument which was laid before both Houses on 19th October last year.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Should not a change which involves an additional expenditure of £40 million a year, as has now been admitted, have had positive parliamentary approval by way of legislation?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, a Statement was made by my honourable friend the Minister for Health in another place when the decision was taken. The Statement was offered to this House through the usual channels but the decision was made not to repeat it. Furthermore, when the instrument was laid any Member of your Lordships' House could have tabled a Prayer amending the regulations within the 40 sitting days allowed.

Lord Renton

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in recent years the European Court of Justice has taken upon itself to add to legislative provisions of the European Community instead of confining itself to interpreting them? Can a protest be made at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference in order to stop that practice?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, it was a decision of the European Court of Justice. In this case, the court decided that the principle of equality between men and women in matters of social security should apply in the area of prescription charges. However, it was left to the United Kingdom to decide how to implement the principle. Although the European Court decided the principle, it was left to the United Kingdom to decide how to implement it. Indeed, we could have implemented the decision with savings; rather than equalising at 60 we could have equalised at 63 or 65.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, does the Minister agree that when the directive was discussed in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House there was no mention of the fact that it would extend beyond equality in pensions? There was no discussion about it and Parliament was not involved. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is correct in saying that the European Court has now imposed upon Parliament, without its consent, £40 million-worth of expenditure which it did not expect.

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, I understand that the Labour Government of the day agreed to the directive when it was published in 1978. I had presumed that it covered social security matters. The European Court has decided that prescription charges should be aligned to social security whereas this Government had presumed the interpretation to be that it should be aligned to health matters.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, why, apart from failure to legislate, was there a failure to repeat in this House the Statement made in another place? Was it because the Opposition did not want it?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, yes, that was the case.