Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 76:"Page 25, line 24, leave out from ““time”” to end of line 26." The noble Baroness said: With this clause, which sets out provisions for the ““responsible pharmacist””, we return to the same territory just explored by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, in her amendments. I listened with care to the Minister’s reply and I understand entirely the desire to change and update the personal control provisions set out in the Medicines Act 1968 to fit those of the role of the responsible pharmacist. However, I have to say that for a number of reasons I was less convinced than the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, by his response. I have struggled to ascertain exactly what exceptional circumstances would have to arise for it to be acceptable for a responsible pharmacist not to be on the premises. I am concerned that a responsible pharmacist, albeit with the assistance of qualified pharmacy technicians, has a role to play not only in the dispensing of prescriptions, but in community health. It is a role that has been built up by the pharmacy industry over the past few years and one which we all support. I do not see how much work of that kind could be done using the means described by the Minister. How would bar coding, robotics and video links be of any help in that work? My amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has added his name, probes what is meant by,"““except in circumstances specified by the Health Minister in regulations””," that would allow a responsible pharmacist not to be present on the premises. In my preparations for our consideration of the Bill in Committee, I talked to some pharmacists about how this might work out. They made two interesting points. First, they said that as pharmacists they feel keenly the responsibility of knowing that in some particularly deprived areas they are the only available healthcare professional. In those circumstances, their role extends way beyond that of their counterparts working in the big chains or other areas. Secondly, they said that the days on which they really earn their money are those when they are working in the back of the pharmacy and happen to hear something going on out in the front. They wander out to join the conversation, whereupon they pick up details such as adverse reactions on repeat prescriptions and, interestingly, they are able to detect certain health conditions by a person’s odour or pallor. Those details could not be picked up by the remote means described by the Minister, but they often lead to quite important medical interpretations. There have been advances in communications technology, but the technology is not that sophisticated yet and is not likely to be for some considerable time. With that in mind, we seek to probe exactly what the circumstances are likely to be, in order to test the Minister’s assertion that they can be dealt with adequately in regulations rather than in the Bill. I beg to move.