HL Deb 24 June 1985 vol 465 cc546-7

2.48 p.m.

Lord Ennals

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are planning to reduce the number of pharmacies and the rate of reimbursements for small pharmacies supplying NHS prescriptions; and, if so, why.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, decisions on the opening and closing of pharmacies are not for the Government. We wish to ensure a more cost-effective service for the taxpayer and a better NHS service for the patient. The new contract will achieve that.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the agreement involved was reached between her department and the PSNC, the pharmaceutical price negotiating committee? Does she not agree with me that if there is a consciously agreed reduction in the number of pharmacies, in particular, small high street pharmacies, it will lead to hardship, especially among elderly and frail people, who will have to travel further to get their NHS prescriptions dispensed? What kind of consultation has there been on this? Has there been consultation with the Pharmaceutical Society, the Patients' Association or, for that matter, the monopoly committee? Why are the Government seeking to clamp down, as it would seem, on small businesses?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am amazed at the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asking all these questions when last Wednesday there was an Unstarred Question which answered all the points he has just raised. The Government have been negotiating with the PSNC, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows, is the representative body, and it is the duty of that body to fulfil its role.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I tabled this Question, or did not take it off the Order Paper, because although we had an Unstarred Question, the noble Baroness did not reply to precisely the points in the Question on the Order Paper.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I beg to disagree with the noble Lord.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, does the noble Baroness seriously say that the Government have no policy on the distribution of pharmacies across the country? Is it not the case that they declined from something like 15,000 in 1955 to just over 10,000 in 1980? Since then, there has been a slight rise. If they fall back again, is this not likely to be at the expense of rural populations and elderly people?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, there are about 1,400 small pharmacies in England. Some are qualified as essential small pharmacies and will do better under the new contract. The new contract specifies essential small pharmacies in order to prevent just what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was complaining about with regard to sparsity in villages and towns and their being deprived of any pharmacies. It is not our business to do anything about closing pharmacies. Pharmacies may relinquish the NHS contract. It is none of our business whether they remain open or are closed.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, is the Minister aware that this policy of eliminating competition is contrary not only to the philosophy but also to the current political practice of the Government? Does the Minister really want to deprive pharmacies large and small of the opportunity of expanding, which will inevitably lead to enhanced values for existing sites and shops, which will inevitably lead to increased prices for the consumer?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, any prospective owner of a business may open wherever he chooses. We are not proposing to prevent any member of any retail trade from developing that retail trade as he sees fit. In considering whether to establish a pharmacy in any particular location, the owner will consider all the opportunities available and will exercise his commercial judgment. That is how it should be.

Lord Morris

My Lords, can my noble friend distinguish between a pharmacy and a chemist's?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I understand that chemists prefer to be known as pharmacists.

Forward to