HC Deb 23 July 1984 vol 64 c439W
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish the names of the pharmaceutical companies which are being allowed to increase their prices by 20 per cent.; and what were the recorded profits or losses of such firms in each of the last three years;

(2) if he will make a statement on his reasons for permitting the pharmaceutical firms price increases of over 20 per cent.; and what this will mean in additional costs to the National Health Service.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

No company has been awarded price increases of 20 per cent. or more overall. Some individual drug prices have been increased by this amount for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 26 June at column415–416.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what steps he has taken in the last year to strengthen the quality and quantity of that branch of his Department dealing with the administration of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme;

(2) what was the total numerical strength of the branch in the Department dealing with the administration of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme in January in each of the last five years; and how many of these were accountants.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

In each of the last five years the equivalent of about 12 staff have been employed full time in running the scheme. This includes the full time equivalent of one and a half qualified accountants. Accountancy support has fallen temporarily during 1984 due to recruitment difficulties. Two private sector accountants are therefore being seconded to our Department to strengthen the team and to undertake special assignments connected with the scheme.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the reason for the delay in deciding whether to publish the findings of his investigations into transfer prices in the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on 11 June at column383.