Amendment No. 71 would allow the RPSGB to authorise individuals to have the power of entry and inspection to any relevant health or social care premises. We believe that that is unnecessary, as the pharmaceutical society inspectors already have powers of entry and inspection to community pharmacies. The society has only 20 or so inspectors to cover England, Wales and Scotland. Therefore it is appropriate that its focus should be community pharmacies. That is where its expertise lies.
Amendment No. 73 would be overly restrictive. A key principle in developing the new powers is not to create more intrusion and bureaucracy. Therefore, where an organisation already has powers of entry and inspection to a particular setting, we would expect that organisation to take the lead. For example, if the case involved independent providers, the lead agency might be the Healthcare Commission. Where the case involved a community pharmacy, the lead agency would be the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Those agencies, along with the police services, have the powers of enforcement relating to that sector. If the case is proven against an independent health provider, the Healthcare Commission can restrict or revoke its registration, effectively putting the provider out of business. Likewise, the pharmaceutical society could do the same for a community pharmacy.
The noble Earl asked who can go where in terms of inspection. In England, the RPSGB will go into community pharmacies; the Healthcare Commission will go into the private and voluntary healthcare sector; the Commission for Social Care Inspection will go into care homes; PCTs will go into GP practices; and the Healthcare Commission will look into NHS trusts and foundation trusts. Those organisations are not all named in the Bill, so it is not necessary to name the pharmaceutical society there.
The noble Earl also asked about the need to enter private dwellings. The most likely need to enter a private dwelling would be where a private doctor is operating from part of his or her home. There, the expertise of the GMC or the Healthcare Commission would be more relevant.
Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Health Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
682 c100-1GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:31:54 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324797
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324797
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324797