Previous Section Home Page

Column 839

Teachers' Pay and Conditions

Motion made, and Question proposed,

10.25 pm

Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West) : I suppose it's a funny old world. We have witnessed yet another circus act on the Government Benches, with a new Prime Minister in waiting who must be wondering tonight how he can reconcile his statements as Chancellor of the Exchequer with his commitments over the weekend as a candidate for the position of Prime Minister.

I am quite confident that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will turn his back on those promises and forget about them. One of his commitments was about raising teacher morale, which is important. However, he has been a member of a Government who have denied teachers the right to negotiate their salaries and conditions.

We are here tonight because of that denial of basic rights and opportunities. It is a denial of a right that is allowed to all other local authority personnel, to central Government personnel and even to people at GCHQ.

This is not an abstract point. People in staff rooms around the country feel excluded from having any role in constructing their own working conditions. Hon. Members in this place and even members of the Government would not tolerate that, as was reflected in the way in which Conservative Members behaved over the past few days.

The point is mirrored for teachers by a wide range of other experiences, including a lack of consultation over the national curriculum, over testing and over the whole paraphernalia of the Education Reform Act 1988. The Government constructed that Act so that it would not involve teachers, and the education service is reaping the whirlwind that the Act brought with it. We must now adapt to many of the issues in the Education Reform Act in the way that was predicted precisely because the Government refused to consult and negotiate with teachers.

We are being asked tonight to agree to an order which is directly responsible for low morale. Those who support the order are directly responsible for pushing down morale and for keeping it low. When the 1988 Act was introduced, the Government said that it would be temporary. We are told that a week is a long time in politics, but teachers in the staff rooms have had four years of the Act, and that seems like an eternity.

The 1988 Act has in no sense been temporary. This order seeks to continue something which no one would consider to be temporary. When the 1988 Act was passed, it was said that it would be replaced by an Act that had consent. We have spent today discussing that, and it must be clear to anyone, particularly from the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-East (Mr. Turner), that the new School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill does not have consent. The Government have not been able to achieve consent, because no one believes that the Government believe in consent. The Government have demonstrated powerfully that they are completely unable to negotiate. The interim

Column 840

advisory committee, introduced by the 1987 Act, has produced some interesting and useful reports, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said. But, even in responding to those reports, the Government's history has been abysmal.

The first IAC report in April 1988 exceeded the Secretary of State's cost limit by 6 per cent., the Government refused to fund the difference and the local education authorities had to find the extra money. The first IAC report rejected regional variations and salary differentials for teachers of subjects with staff shortages. Today, the Government made clear what they thought of that IAC recommendation.

In the second report in February 1989, the settlement was £80 million above the remit of £350 million. Again, the Government refused to meet the shortfall, £25 million was met by savings in teachers' pension funds and the rest, yet again, had to be found by local education authorities.

The third report, in 1990, again recommended a settlement above the Government's remit—£133 million. Again, the Government ducked their responsibility and refused to meet the settlement agreed by the IAC. Instead, they decided on a phased increase, which meant that, rather than an increase of 9.3 per cent., teachers had to make do with an increase of 7.1 per cent.

I need hardly remind the House that, despite the magician-like qualities of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, inflation is 10.9 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. I hope that, as someone who is used to dealing with figures, he will look at the figures and try to reconcile the contradictions within them, because it is not we who suffer from those contradictions and differences, but the children in the schools.

In the remit to the IAC in September, the previous Secretary of State—I hope that I do not have to say that again next week—did not give a limit of settlement to the committee. He directed that the cost of its recommendations should fall within the interquartile range of private sector, non-manual settlements. But there is one overriding question, which the previous Secretary of State and the present one have not yet answered : will the Government fully fund the settlement that arises from the remit that they have given this year's IAC? That is critical—the Government have cash-limited the amount that local authorities can spend.

Despite the arguments between us and the fact that some Conservative Members are unhappy to accept it, we all know that teacher morale is low. As a survey in tonight's edition of the Evening Standard shows, 16,000 teachers in London have left during the past two months. The fed-up teachers blame the exodus on poor pay and low status. The Government must address that issue. They have a responsibility tonight to assure us that they will fully fund any recommendation from the IAC.

I have outlined the Government's dismal record to date. There has been much discussion today about teacher morale. The 1990 IAC report said :

The IAC recognises that the commitments that it made and the promises that it tried to elicit from the Secretary

Column 841

of State would not solve the whole problem. But it thought that it was critical that any future pay settlement must be recognised by the Secretary of State and must be funded.

Other Members have spoken of teacher morale. It is not a political point to be thrown across the Chamber. I have to deal with that issue every time I go into a school. I do not try to put teachers down : far too many members of my family and friends are teachers and I value their health as much as I value my own. Last week, the Health and Safety Commission said that teachers probably suffer more stress than people in any other profession. I beg the Secretary of State to take the issue much more seriously than he appears to be prepared to do.

The order continues the work of the IAC. We are debating yet another order, even though, year after year, Secretaries of State have told us that we were debating the last one, and that matters would be sorted out. The Bill rejects many of the main tenets of the IAC reports. The IAC has agreed that a basic necessity is a basic national pay level with local variations, where necessary, on top of the basic amount. For the first time since the war, the Bill will change the whole basis of negotiations. We are being asked to continue the work of a body, one of whose major recommendations has just been rejected by the House.

Several hon. Members spoke about the International Labour Organisation. There is no doubt that the ILO utterly rejected the Government's view as contained in the 1987 Act. Its committee of experts said that the Act was in breach of article 4 of convention 98 on voluntary negotiation, and called upon the Government to modify the legislation to make voluntary negotiations possible. The Government have not modified the Act through the order, and we are being asked yet again to renew the order.

Sometimes the Government admit that teacher morale is low, but that admission depends on which Minister is speaking. They have denied teachers the rights given to other people. The Labour party has been talking about teacher morale for some time, not in order to lower it but to get it recognised. The Government are exploiting the commitment of teachers. Teachers have an enormous commitment to the job and to their children and they deserve our support and recognition. Teachers will soon know what the new Cabinet thinks of them and will see whether the new Prime Minister and his Cabinet are prepared to meet the demands in the IAC report. The Government should at last be prepared to recognise and value teachers with a worthwhile pay settlement.

10.38 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) : I do not propose to delay the House because, like many hon. Members, I have already spent more than enough time debating education. All hon. Members must be bitterly disappointed at having to debate the order at all. Everybody wanted matters to move forward more quickly, so that proper pay machinery could be put in place earlier. Liberal Democrats predicted that we would be in the position that we are now in, even though Ministers argued otherwise. That has a certain inevitability about it.

I hope that the Minister will address some specific issues. First, I hope that he will outline the basis and remit within which the IAC will make its decision this year. That is important, given the teacher shortages, the problems

Column 842

with morale and the other difficulties referred to in the earlier debate. We need to know to what extent the IAC is being asked to look at that matter this year.

Secondly, there is the question of full funding or otherwise, which has already been raised. Perhaps the Minister could give the House a clear statement about the Government's commitment to meet the cost of the settlement that may be reached as a result of the IAC's deliberations.

Thirdly—this is also important—last year, the IAC made a recommendation that the government effectively rejected by deciding to phase the implementation instead of introducing it according to the recommendation. The result is the vast cuts in teachers' salaries against inflation during the three years of the IAC's recommendations. Do the Government intend to see a settlement—would they be prepared to see a settlement—that at least matches inflation and ensures that teachers' salaries are restored to their proper level according to the IAC, so that, when the new machinery that we debated earlier is implemented, we do not immediately have to make up for the Government's meanness in the past two or three years?

Finally, since a new Prime Minister will take office tomorrow, who is committed to a thorough review of teachers' salaries, do the Government intend that any account of that commitment should be taken in these deliberations? Have the Government already set in stone what the IAC will do this year or, if the Prime Minister does indeed seek a thorough review of teachers' salaries, will it be possible for any account of that to be taken in the settlement?

10.41 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar) : I shall try to reply to the points raised by the hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I am delighted that the atmosphere now is slightly less frenetic than 43 minutes ago. I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is now tucked up safely in bed.

The interim advisory committee has been asked to build on the far-reaching improvements it recommended last year. The remit balances market forces against affordability. This is consistent with the Government's approach to pay across the board. It also acknowledges the need to continue improving teacher supply in areas where vacancy rates are a particular cause for concern, notably London and, as many of my hon. Friends said earlier, across the south-east. We have never sought to disguise the fact that there are shortages in certain subjects, as well as in some geographical areas.

The committee has been directed that the cost of its recommendations must fall within the inter-quartile range of non-manual pay settlements in the 12 months to November 1990. This constraint is the same as that which already applies to civil servants and will also have a role in the new permanent negotiating machinery that will be set up under the Bill, the Second Reading of which has just received such overwhelming support in the House. Incidentally, I thank the hon. Member for Truro and his hon. Friends for their support.

Column 843

It is, of course, for the committee to decide what to recommend within that remit, taking account of what the local authorities can afford, but it allows for a very fair settlement to be reached——

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) rose——

Mr. Eggar : I believe in a relaxed style at the Dispatch Box, but at 10.43 pm, after the debate that we have just had and after the week that we have all had, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way to him. I shall be delighted, however——

Mr. Straw : It is only a simple question.

Mr. Eggar : That is exactly what I feared. I know my limitations.

We believe that the Bill allows for a fair settlement for teachers. The remit given to the IAC is, by definition, very fair, and the Government expect it to work within that remit. Of course, education standard spending includes an appropriate allowance to meet any considerations within that remit.

The Government believe that flexible pay systems, which allow the targeting of additional payments to meet specific needs, are the most cost-effective way of addressing any problem of recruitment and retention. The committee's remit for 1991-92 invites it to consider whether local flexibilities should be developed still further. Hon. Members referred to that point. The committee is currently considering evidence from interested parties. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked to receive its report by 18 January.

This time next year, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 will have been repealed. In the meantime, however, we need this order to extend the life of the Act beyond 31 March 1991, so as to pay teachers an increase next year. I commend it to the House and ask that it be approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

Column 844

Pharmaceutical Companies (Profits)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

10.45 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : Humility forces me to concede that other political developments today somewhat overshadow this debate. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to introduce a brief debate on the predicament in which the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry finds itself, with particular emphasis on its profitability and its importance.

My hon. Friend the Minister needs no reminding of the importance of the pharmaceutical industry. First, it is the source of products which alleviate human suffering. Secondly, in commercial terms it acts as a magnet for inward investment into the United Kingdom. Thirdly, it is a provider of employment. Indeed, in the 1970s and 1980s employment in the industry rose dramatically. Fourthly, the industry is an essential dimension to the scientific infrastructure of the United Kingdom. That is the nub of the matter.

Research is the lifeblood of the pharmaceutical industry, but there can be no research unless there is a sufficient level of profitability. There cannot be a healthy pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom unless research is taking place in the United Kingdom. That is why I sought a debate on the profitability of the industry.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no doubts about the importance of the industry. Recently, it was described by Lord Walton of Detchant as

I remind my hon. Friend that three of the best-selling medicines in the world, and seven of the top 20, are British in origin and development. The United Kingdom has a better record in pharmaceutical innovation than any other country. The top 50 products in the world represent just under half the total prescription medicines market. Of those, 27.6 per cent. originate from the United Kingdom, which is more than the total figure of 29.8 per cent. for the rest of Europe. The United States figure is also 29.8 per cent. That is a magnificent record.

It is worth stressing that the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry provides an export surplus of more than £1 billion per year, compared with a projected national deficit of £15 billion this year and £11.5 billion next year.

In a wide range of medical conditions, the discovery of new or improved medicines would alleviate much human misery—not least the two killers in developed countries. I refer to heart disease and cancer, which alone kill more people in the United Kingdom than any other group of ailments—nearly one third of a million people every year.

Advances in research cannot be made without the profitability to finance research. Only more investment in research and development will help to find new and better treatments, but the costs of that investment are escalating and the returns for innovative companies are diminishing.

Most important of all for a thriving United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry is patent term restoration—that is, effective patent protection. The 1989 Touche Ross report concluded that, between 1960 and 1986, effective patent life was eroded from 12 years to around six years. I acknowledge that those are average figures and that there

Column 845

is considerable variation around the mean. Nevertheless, that degree of erosion over 25 years gives great cause for concern.

The ranges for other major European countries are somewhat higher, but the same downward trend is evident, though it is greater in the United Kingdom than elsewhere in Europe. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the European Commission's draft regulation, which proposes an effective patent life of 16 years by the granting of "complementary protection certificates." That term was arrived at after careful consideration, and its authors maintain that it strikes the right balance. There is a great discrepancy between that proposed provision and current United Kingdom practice.

In the case of treatments for medical conditions such as multiple sclerosis, which are characterised by long periods of remission and which would therefore require longer periods of evaluation, there could still be no hope of bringing a product to market while any effective patent protection remained. In meeting that and similar situations, the EC directive is ineffective and United Kingdom practice is even more defective.

In the case of the more complex products of biotechnology, one can foresee a much longer product registration approval process. Where the approval process exceeded the life of the patent, no effective patent life would be left.

It may be argued that the Government, while accepting that some action needs to be taken, seem to believe that a patent term of 13 or 14 years would be appropriate. If I am mistaken, the Government have an opportunity, through my hon. Friend the Minister, to correct a false impression. Meanwhile, France and Italy, for example, are proposing a 17-year period, the United Kingdom 13 or 14 years, and the EC 16 years. While such trends persist, the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry will continue to be at a disadvantage by comparison with its major competitors.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Dr. Heinz Redwood, a noted health economist, recently stated :

With regard to generics and to patent term extension, the profitability of the industry in the United Kingdom has arguably been further threatened by the Government's encouragement of generic prescribing and parallel imports. One reason advanced against supporting the EC regulation is that it would blunt the generic initiative, and prices would rise rapidly. As I shall demonstrate, however, there is little evidence to support that view.

First, let us consider the position in which the pharmaceutical industry now finds itself. On the one hand, it is a research-based industry with an average effective patent life of approximately six years, which is entirely unacceptable. On the other hand, the Government are advocating generic prescribing and the use of the products of the generic industry. The indicative prescribing scheme was the re-writing of working paper IV of the White Paper. There, the Government set out to recommend generic prescribing and to allay any concerns about it. That is a questionable thesis in its own right, but it is profoundly worrying in its implications for the pharmaceutical industry.

Column 846

Dr. Redwood has developed a hypothetical model, which calculates the effects of the EC proposals on the top 100 medicines. Between 1990 and 1996, the annual extra cost would be a mere £10.2 million at 1988 prices—not a significant debit, other points considered. In any case, the recent NHS reforms, and the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme will control pricing. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that generic extension is in itself no El Dorado.

With regard to the profitability of the industry, the price control regime has been almost too effective. The return on capital employed on sales to the NHS by the industry has reduced from 16 per cent. in 1986 to about 7 per cent.—an unsatisfactory state of affairs. To take just two comparisons, the return on oil and gas investment has reduced over the same period from 28 per cent. to 16 per cent. while that of food retailing remains at about 22 per cent. My hon. Friend seems to disagree—I look forward to hearing his comments, but I believe that with the NHS as a major consumer, return on investment for the pharmaceutical industry is arguably inadequate.

As a result of the flexible and encouraging policies pursued during the 1970s and 1980s, the United Kingdom is host to the international pharmaceutical industry. It has been encouraging to see United States and European companies expand manufacturing and research facilities in the United Kingdom, providing high quality jobs and supporting an already strong scientific infrastructure.

Parent boards of such foreign multinationals are now beginning to have second thoughts about investment in the 1990s. We have a less favourable attitude to patent term extension. We have a history of adverse legislation—the limited list of 1984, indicative prescribing in 1990, some concern about the workings of pharmaceutical price regulation, and a generics industry endorsed and encouraged by the Government. We have decreasing profitability. Faced with those issues, and the welcome attitude being displayed in France, Germany and Italy, to name but three countries, the future of pharmaceutical industry investment in the United Kingdom must now be in doubt.

If we are to retain our lead in pharmaceutical invention, I urge my hon. Friend to review his position on patent term extension before the European Council of Ministers makes its final decision on the proposals. I urge him to bear in mind the points that I have tried to make. The United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry is not a lame duck but a bird in flight. The question is whether the Government should inadvertently shoot it down.

10.59 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on having the opportunity to introduce the first Adjournment debate of the new era. It shows his impeccable sense of timing. He has brought to the attention of the House an issue of considerable importance to his constituents and the country. The issue is close to my heart, for in my constituency of Loughborough are based two major British pharmaceutical companies—Fisons and Riker—and I do not need to be reminded of the importance of the industry as a key supplier to the national health service and as a major employer and wealth creator for the British economy.

Column 847

My hon. Friend talked of the "predicament" of the pharmaceutical industry. That is not the word that I would use. As he was at pains to make clear, the British pharmaceutical industry has behind it an almost unrivalled history of success in terms of its capacity to generate new products, wealth and jobs. It was one of the cornerstones of the success of the British economy during the 1980s. My constituency interest in the future of the industry merely adds to my belief and recognition from a Government perspective of the importance of the industry in our total industrial effort.

To illustrate the scale of the industry's success, I can add some statistics to those given by my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom is fifth in the world in terms of the scale of pharmaceutical production. The sales of the British pharmaceutical industry amount to about £5 billion a year, of which £2 billion is exported. The industry employs about 70,000 people directly, never mind those who have jobs as a result of its success. Those employees are substantially better paid than the average employee in British industry. Therefore, it is not merely an employer of labour but an employer of high-paid labour.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke was at pains to point out, the industry has a tremendous record in terms of its spend on research and development. A total of 14 per cent. of the entire world spend on pharmaceutical research and development takes place in these islands. My hon. Friend was too modest in his claim that seven of the world's 20 best selling medicines are based on United Kingdom research. I am advised the figure is eight, including the world's No. 1 pharmaceutical product—Zantac—which is a product of Glaxo.

By any definition, the British pharmaceutical industry is not in a "predicament". It is a world-beating industry, setting a pace and performance target that few other industries in this country or elsewhere can match. It is a tremendous success story. As a Minister with a key interest in the industry as a customer and as a representative of a constituency in which it is an important employer, I have asked what circumstances made that success possible. It is clearly in the interests of us all that those circumstances should continue, so that the success story can be maintained.

In considering what made it possible, one thing is clear. That did not happen because of the benign good will of a few civil servants in Whitehall. it is no thanks to the outdated ideas of industrial sponsorship in Whitehall Departments that we have a successful pharmaceutical industry. Its success is based upon high quality management and entrepreneurial decision taking by people in the industry, making the right decisions about the allocation of resources. It is a success story for British management, not a success story for British politicians.

That is the key factor that marked the industry out for success, but the Government cannot close their mind to the fact that the national health service is the largest single customer of the British pharmaceutical industry. As a customer, the Government have an important interest in ensuring its continued strength. Only if the industry continues to be strong can we expect it to continue to undertake the research that is necessary to ensure that British pharmaceutical technology continues to develop and to break new frontiers.

Column 848

The Government are also properly concerned about the wider implications of the success of the industry for employment and wealth creation. As responsible purchasers from the pharmaceutical industry, just as Marks and Spencer is interested to ensure that its suppliers are vigorous, strong and able to continue to supply its needs next year as well as this year, so also are the Government keen to ensure that the right context exists for the continued success of the British pharmaceutical industry, both because we rely on its strength to supply the needs of the national health service and also because we want to ensure that its wealth-creating skills continue to underwrite the success of that part of the British economy.

What are the key ingredients that have made that success possible? A fair slice of my hon. Friend's speech was devoted to the importance of patent protection for new pharmaceutical products, based on investment in research. The Government share my hon. Friend's recognition that proper patent protection is a vital defence for an innovative industry. There are few industries with a record of innovation to match that of the pharmaceutical industry.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that there is in place a proper patent protection system that recognises the balance that must be struck between the interests of a pharmaceutical company to protect its right to use the fruits of its own research and the interests of the customer in not having to pay for the same research three, four or five times over.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there have already been changes during the last 15 years to the scale of protection available under patent law. The Patent Act 1977 extended the basic life of a patent under British law from 16 to 20 years. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 abolished the concept of product licences as of right. That was an important change in our patent law.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should recognise the importance of the distinction in patent law between the basic life of a patent from the time that a new compound or new active ingredient is patented—the beginning of the testing process—and the protected market life of the final product, once it is accepted for use as a medicine. That difference arises because of the time that it takes to test and gain approval for a new compound. The amount of patent life that is available to the company during which to exploit the product in the marketplace can be a relatively small proportion of the total length of life of patent protection. That subject was research last year by Touche Ross.

We recognise that that phenomenon exists, and that to talk of a patent life of 20 years does not mean that products are available in the marketplace for 20 years. It is important to assess the protected market life, as well as the total patent life, and to ask whether the protected market life of a new product is becoming shorter. The Touche Ross report, to which my hon. Friend referred, made a contribution to that debate, but our consideration of the issue is continuing and I am not in a position to give him the conclusions that we have drawn.

We must not forget the other side of the coin : just as it is not true to say that, the moment that a patent is taken out, a product is available for use in the marketplace, so it is not true to say that, the moment that a patent runs out, the company can no longer exploit the product in the marketplace. There is a considerable wash-on period

Column 849

beyond the life of patent protection, during which a company can continue commercially to exploit the results of its research.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke rightly said that those issues must be addressed in the domestic context and particularly in the context of the Commission's proposals. We are still considering exactly what response we should make, and we shall certainly bear in mind the points that he made.

My hon. Friend touched briefly on the operation of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, which I know from constituency experience to be of continuing concern to those charged with operating British pharmaceutical companies. My hon. Friend, and most people in the sector, will recognise that some rules on the exploitation of monopoly products are inevitable. The industry recognises that some rules are inevitable and that they work to its advantage, because it has signed the PPRS, which is a voluntary agreement between the industry and the Government, who represent the national health service, the largest single customer of the industry.

The PPRS is based on the proposition that it is not sensible to try to cost each product in each form of delivery, but more sensible to base our agreement on the concept of return on investment achieved by a pharmaceutical company in the supply of goods to the national health service. My hon. Friend quoted a return on investment of 7 per cent., which is not the figure by which we work. The target returns by which we work under the PPRS are between 17 and 21 per cent., which my hon. Friend will not regard as comparing too badly with the other industries that he used by way of comparison.

We recognise that, if we want to maintain a viable,

Column 850

strong and successful industry, we must ensure that those who operate within it can secure a reasonable market rate of return on their investments in the industry, which is why the targets are fixed that level. From my previous experience in industry, I know that they are not unrealistic rates of return to fix in a relatively secure market. One must remember that, over and above those rates is the grey area, whereby a company can keep up to 50 per cent. over its target profit if it can demonstrate that that extra profit was generated as a result of specific and identifiable productivity gains in the supply and production of a range of products.

My hon. Friend, if I may say so, exaggerated the extent to which the PPRS makes the production and sale of pharmaceutical products to the national health service an uneconomic business proposition. I do not doubt for one moment that we apply downward pressure on prices through the PPRS—that is its precise purpose—but it is a realistic scheme that allows a successful industry to make a realistic return on the investment made in the production and sale of pharmaceutical products.

The most important factor is that the Government must recognise that there is potential and limitation in their position. We shall be a responsible, informed purchaser of pharmaceutical products. We want our suppliers of pharmaceutical products to be viable, successful companies tomorrow. We want this vital British industry to continue its record of success into the future. We know that primary responsibility for that must rest with its management. Our role is that of the responsible purchaser, and we shall seek to continue to discharge it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven.

Written Answers Section

  Home Page