§ 16. Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health to what he attributes the rise in the bill for prescriptions since prescription charges were abolished; and whether he will now consider restoring them, subject to exemptions in case of real need.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonA number of factors including the removal of the financial barrier to seeking treatment; the heavier incidence of sickness in 1965; and continuance of the long term trends towards the use of more powerful but more costly drugs and towards an increase both in the population and in the proportion of the elderly. The re-introduction of the charges would be a retrograde step.
§ Mr. FisherThe right hon. Gentleman has listed a number of other causes, but does he not agree that with a rise in costs of £23 million in the first year, which is a rise of about 22 per cent., the abolition of these charges must at any rate have been a substantial factor? Does he really think that this is a wise sense of priorities, even within the Health Service itself—wiser than the provision of 6 new hospitals, or the improvement of others?
§ Mr. RobinsonI have never denied that abolition was a substantial factor. All I have said was that it is quite impossible to quantify the various factors involved. I think that abolition was a wise step.
§ Mr. Ioan EvansDoes my right hon. Friend realise that this withdrawal of the tax on sickness is welcomed in the country? Does he recall that when the party opposite doubled the charge the Lancet showed that this meant that although they were imposing a charge they were increasing expenditure?
§ Mr. RobinsonI am also aware that for most of the time when charges were in operation the medical profession was categorically against them.