Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department of Health and Social Care

Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts
2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 24th October 2016

(8 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017 View all Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one reason why we must tread carefully, and hear what regulations the Government produce for consultation.

Some of the measures did not form part of the initial consultation, and there is a feeling that they have been added to the Bill at the last minute. Given the damaging cuts to the community pharmacy sector that were announced only last week, there is an anxiety about what costs could be created by any additional administrative burden.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Does my hon. Friend agree that pharmacists often know their patients much better than over-stretched GPs do? They can also advise on the prescription of appropriate cheaper drugs. Does he also agree that, instead of putting further pressure on the pharmacy sector, the Minister should be supporting it to reduce the burden on GPs and to help the NHS save money?

Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was real concern about the announcement last week. From the surveys that have been taken, we know that approximately one in four people who currently use the pharmacist would go to their GP if they were unable to seek advice from the pharmacy. We know the pressure that GP surgeries, and indeed the NHS, are under. We will have to watch carefully the impact of these proposals, which I hope will not be as serious as a number of Members fear.

The impact assessment does not offer many clues. It states that the additional costs that could be incurred

“have not been quantified, as their magnitude will not be known until after consultation on subsequent regulations.”

We need to tread carefully. The Secretary of State is asking us to give him new powers before setting out exactly how he will use them. That is a far from perfect state of affairs. I hope that we will get some further clarity when the Bill reaches Committee.