Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 71:"Page 19, line 4, at end insert—" ““(   )   a person authorised by the Pharmaceutical Society,”” The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 71, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 73, to both of which I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has added her name. Clause 19 brings us to powers of entry and inspection. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has been actively involved in the work designed to address many of the issues raised by Dame Janet Smith’s fourth report on the Shipman affair. During this work, the society was given to understand that from April of this year the role of routine monitoring and inspection of controlled drugs in community pharmacies was likely to be undertaken by its own pharmacy inspectorate. Yet that is not what Clause 19 seems to be saying. It refers to the police. I have no problem with that, but it also refers to ““authorised persons””, who are defined in subsection (4) as,"““(a) a person authorised by the relevant authority . . . (b) an accountable officer, and . . . (c) . . . a member of the staff of the designated body””." Where is the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in all of this? The key advantage that Dame Janet identified in moving the society’s inspectorate into the inspection role was that its field force largely comprises pharmacists with up-to-date knowledge on all issues governing the pharmacy profession—legislation, ethics and good practice. It has a unique working knowledge and an established role with pharmacists. It makes complete sense for it to have the lead role when it comes to entry and inspection of healthcare providers. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions in this area? In particular, who are to be the ““authorised”” persons mentioned in subsection (4)? If there is still to be a role for the inspectorate of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, how will the responsibilities for entry and inspection be allocated between the different persons and bodies mentioned in the subsection? Moving to Amendment No. 73, I want to raise the issue of entry into private dwellings. It seems to me that we should hesitate long and hard before legislating that anyone other than a police officer should enter a person’s home against his wishes, yet that is exactly what this clause will allow. My amendment would restrict the power of entry to a police officer, suitably authorised, or a person authorised by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. In my view, that is a right and proper restriction. The clause would allow an authorised person or an accountable officer, as defined, to arrive at the home of a doctor or pharmacist at a reasonable hour and, on production of a letter of authority, demand to come in. He or she would then have the legal right to come in. I know that no one would be able to enter the private home of a doctor or pharmacist unless the home was also used for the provision of healthcare or the supply or administration of a controlled drug. However, all that would be necessary to fulfil those conditions would be for the doctor or pharmacist to have paper records or a computer in his house containing relevant information. He would not need to have any controlled drugs on the premises. Are we really saying that people who are neither police officers nor members of the established inspectorate of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should have the right of entry into someone’s home? I seriously question the desirability of that and would welcome the Minister’s explanation. I beg to move.