HC Deb 11 December 1933 vol 284 cc19-21
42. Mr. GEORGE HALL

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the import duty on insulin has been increased from 10 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent.; and what will be the effect of this upon the price of imported insulin?

43. Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of insulin that has been imported into this country during the last convenient nine months; what was the world price at the beginning and the end of the selected period; what was the price of British insulin at corresponding periods; and whether, in increasing the import duty from 10 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent., consideration has been given to the additional cost that will have to be met by hospitals and sufferers from diseases for which insulin forms the basis of cure?

Dr. BURGIN

A tribunal constituted under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, as amended by the Finance Act, 1926, has recently decided that insulin and its salts fall within one of the general descriptions of goods scheduled as liable to duty under that Act. Insulin, therefore, now becomes subject to the Key Industry Duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. No statistics of imports or of world prices of insulin are available, but I am informed that for some time past the retail price of insulin from one maker in this country has been 1s. 8d. per 100 units and from the other makers 2s. a 100 units. An undertaking has been given on behalf of the British makers that their prices will not be raised as a result of the new duty, and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, has the question of the price of insulin very much in mind and proposes to watch the position closely.

Sir P. HARRIS

Docs the hon. Gentleman realise that this drug, which is vital for use in the case of certain diseases, especially diabetes, is at present outside the reach of thousands of poor people, and that its price needs to be very much lower if full advantage is to be taken of its remedial powers!

Mr. GRENFELL

Is there any possibility that any advantage accruing to the producers will compensate for the disadvantages to the public health generally from the retention of high prices for this very valuable medical substance?

Dr. BURGIN

The whole question of insulin and its salts is, of course, receiving very careful consideration. A tribunal deciding a purely legal question, "Is this or is this not a fine chemical?" has given a decision. The result is that the duty is automatically applied under the provisions of legislation going back to 1921. Obviously, an opportunity must be given to consider the effects of that decision, but the undertaking that the price shall not be increased is a step in the right direction. Whether the price can be reduced is a matter which must be considered further, and it shall be so considered.

Mr. GRENFELL

Will the hon. Gentleman promise the House that he will report on these considerations at a convenient date in the future, so that the House may decide whether there is any danger of the price rising unduly?

Dr. BURGIN

I will convey that suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir JOHN HASLAM

Can we take it that the present Government are not responsible for this duty, as is insinuated by certain interested people in the Press?

Dr. BURGIN

That clearly results from what I said just now. It was an Act of Parliament of 1921.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE

Is there any assurance that there is a sufficient supply of insulin from British manufacturers?

Dr. BURGIN

We have no assurance, but we (have no reason to think that it is not the case.

Sir H. SAMUEL

If it is the fact that it has been the practice since 1921, is there any reason why it should be altered now?

Dr. BURGIN

That is the provision of the Act of Parliament. Under the Act of Parliament an interested party can apply to the Committee for a decision. An interested party has applied to the Committee and a decision has been given. The position must be reviewed in the light of that decision. I have told the House quite frankly that the position is being clearly borne in mind.

The monthly returns received by my right hon. Friend do not enable him to make the distinction suggested. The number of persons in receipt of out-relief in the months named and ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation and the remainder of the persons in receipt of out-relief in those months are shown in the following table. The primary cause of relief in a number of those in the first category may, however, have been sickness, and not unemployment, and a few in the second may have been relieved on account of unemployment.
— July, 1931. October, 1933.
England and Wales. Lancashire (including the seventeen associated County Boroughs). England and Wales. Lancashire (including the seventeen associated County Boroughs).
Persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation and their dependants.
Men 73,155 15,617 154,504 37,056
Women (including dependent wives). 65,978 14,408 129,557 32,953
Children 140,141 28,754 246,211 60,397
Totals (including dependants). 279,274 58,779 530,272 130,406
All other persons in receipt of out-relief, including dependants.
Men 114,608 11,197 141,324 15,969
Women (including dependent wives). 226,568 24,547 259,213 32,116
Children 151,032 18,658 171,123 23,399
Totals (including dependants). 492,208 54,402 571,660 71,484