HL Deb 19 March 1984 vol 449 cc975-6

2.58 p.m.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to repay the £10 million clawed back from pharmacists by the DHSS.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, repayment of sums witheld from pharmacists' reimbursement for August and September 1983 was completed in January.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, which in a sense accepted that they were repaid because they had been illegally clawed back. Would the noble Lord answer three questions? Will he confirm that, if Parliament gives its blessing to the amendment to the Health and Social Services Bill to provide legal sanction for an illegal action, he will he demanding of pharmacists a total of £40 million clawback to he paid in six months when it is in fact earnings over three years? Secondly, will he accept that at least 650 of these retrospective demands will he made in situations where the ownership of pharmacies has changed? Therefore, is it not right that many pharmacists are likely to close as a result of the Government's proposed action? Thirdly, is it not grossly unfair that his department should now be withholding £30 million owed to pharmacists for overhead costs until the pharmacists agree to this retrospective payment?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the Health and Social Security Bill, which is at present going through another place. He will, of course, have plenty of opportunities to debate that when it reaches your Lordships' Chamber, but the fact remains that that Bill corrects an irregularity which has been going on for about 20 years or so when we thought that what we were doing was in fact perfectly correct. Of course, the noble Lord will be fully aware of that. The fact is that the results of the inquiry into pharmacists' discounts showed clearly that they had been over-reimbursed, and their negotiators agreed that that was so. A technical irregularity has so far prevented us from going ahead to recover the total sum involved, and the legislation to which the noble Lord referred will put matters beyond doubt.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord. When he says a technical difficulty, or whatever the term was, what he is actually saving is that it was an illegal action; and surely it has never happened before, that profits over a period of three years have had to be paid back within the course of six months? Is this not unfair to pharmacists, who perform an important function in our society? Is it not wrong that at precisely the same time the Government are suggesting to the Pharmacists' Retail Panel that the payment for NHS services should be halved?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, first, the technical irregularity to which I referred on announcing arrangements for recovery, was conceded. The recovery, as the noble Lord knows, was temporarily suspended. A special adjustment was offered to pharmacists who, as they were not in contract at the time, had not received the discounts involved. On the remaining points, Mr. Justice Mann ruled in favour of the Secretary of State on 14th February but the matter is subject to an appeal by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, which negotiates with the department on pharmacists' remuneration. I understand that an appeal has now been lodged, so it might be prudent not to go any further.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my village a third pharmacist has just opened, and there are no signs that pharmacists are going into bankruptcy there?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords. I am sure that my noble friend is quite right.

Forward to