Community Pharmacies

Debate between Kevin Barron and Nicholas Dakin

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron]

It is very important, and the mechanism that has been put in place will not solve everything. We may get Boots in Gatwick airport supporting it, but there is the potential that others may drop off the line because they are just outside the geographical area. We need to look at that.

Let me turn to population health. This cannot be done by central distribution centres or a pharmacy based miles away, as they have no link with the locality. I am pleased that the idea of major companies getting involved in prescribing has been dropped. Pharmacists know their customers well and are familiar with their medications and, consequently, the customers feel confident in asking them for their advice.

The Government’s figures show that the £170 million cut could force up to 3,000 community pharmacies—one in four across the country—to close their doors to the public, so people would have to travel a lot further to their pharmacist and not have the local connection that I mentioned previously. Community pharmacy is the gateway to health for some 1.6 million patients each day. If anything, that is something we need to get a grip on.

A core component of current pharmacy services supports the public to stay well, live healthier lives and self-care. Pharmacists play a central role in the management of long-term conditions. They carry out medicines use reviews, for example. We must remember that more than 70% of expenditure on our national health service at both primary and acute level is spent on people with long-term conditions. There could not be a better gateway for those people to get the assistance they need to manage those conditions than through local pharmacies.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right. Community pharmacies are at the heart of the gateway. Does he agree that there is a danger that the proposed cuts might end up costing more money than they save?

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Debate between Kevin Barron and Nicholas Dakin

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right. After the miners’ strike in the mid-1980s, the running down of coal mining in my constituency and many others in South Yorkshire devastated the local economies, which were fragile even when mining was taking place. Thousands of jobs were lost not only in coal mining but in supply industries. The objective 1 programme, which was introduced in 2000 and ran for six years, put some £2.4 billion into not only jobs and skills but health, neighbourhood renewal and housing. More than £820 million of that came from Europe, and without it south Yorkshire would not be what it is today. Many Ministers travel to places like the advanced manufacturing park, but they would not be able to go there if Europe had not taken the lead in the regeneration of poor areas in the UK. Such places just would not be there.

[Nic Dakin]

My right hon. Friend is completely right about the power of the European Union in assisting us in regenerating areas of the countries like his so that there can be a renaissance and they can move forward.

I echo the reference that has been made to Siemens, which is an important employer in my region, with a base in Lincoln and developments in Hull. It has said:

“Siemens believes that being part of the EU is good for UK jobs and prosperity and we have concerns about the possible effects of a vote to leave.”

The company is investing in new wind power and renewables, which bring a lot of opportunities for steel. We should not take any risks with that future.

There is a massive choice about our future before the nation. In making that choice, I hope that everyone thinks it through very carefully. We respect the view of the British people, and I hope very much that they vote to remain.