I was skimming one of the debates, from 1984, about the changes to the law concerning the sale of reading glasses, now that a large part of the Hansard back catalogue is online. This is a case I was involved in, as the debate makes clear. This passage caught my eye (emphasis added):
The Earl of Caithness [...]
With regard to the sale of glasses, I must reiterate that medical opinion is firm that the wrong glasses cannot cause any damage to adult eyes. It is also a fact that most people will be aware if their glasses are incorrect in some way. Faced with these facts. we feel able to relax the total ban on sales of glasses other than by qualified opticians. This does not mean we favour or encourage wrong dispensing. Indeed, the clause makes it a statutory requirement that glasses sold by non-opticians would have to conform to the prescription given by a doctor or ophthalmic optician. We believe that glasses, like most other products, need to be safe and serviceable. However, requiring glasses to be correct does not mean that we need to legislate upon those who can sell them. Many products which are potentially more dangerous than glasses are sold and used.
As an example, I invite your Lordships to look upwards, because you are content to sit under a roof held up by scaffolding. No one has advocated a scaffolders’ Bill or a scaffolding council to restrict scaffolding to those registered. I do not want to tempt fate but I believe your Lordships face a greater risk from the scaffolding falling down than from unqualified dispensers. In such cases, safeguards are attached to the products or workmanship not to the sellers.
Indeed, as Lord Monson confirmed, wearing the reading glasses I was selling was a fairly safe busniess:
My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, aware that at this very moment I am wearing a pair of Mr. Risdon’s glasses which cost me £8.50; and that they are perfectly satisfactory in every way?
Monson was (and remains) the head of the Society for Individual Freedom.
