Health Bill

I strongly support the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 77 in this group is not as restrictive as hers, in that it would afford some latitude for a pharmacist to become responsible for more than one pharmacy in exceptional circumstances such as an emergency. Frankly, I think that it would be wrong to rule out contingencies of this kind in the Bill. However, in the generality of circumstances, I agree with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that it is not appropriate to allow for a pharmacist’s professional responsibility to be divided between two or more sets of premises. Pharmacists themselves do not appear to want this, and they do not want it for a very good reason: the safety of patients. In my view the Bill as drafted is not tight enough to ensure that proper safeguards will be in place to guarantee patient safety. What might otherwise happen? We could envisage a multiple retailer deciding that a single pharmacist could take responsibility for the in-house pharmacies in a clutch of supermarkets. There could be significant financial incentives for doing that. If the wording of the Bill were to allow this, it could become not the exception, but the rule. I for one would have grave worries if that were to happen. The issues here are not only about responsibility, but also about control. I realise that the Bill moves us away from the concept of personal control, but I suggest that being in professional control of the business is still important. The Minister was right to say that one can envisage a pharmacist delegating a range of tasks and duties to suitably competent staff; that already happens. Dispensing technicians are already regulated, albeit on a voluntary basis. The pharmacist himself does not need to do everything personally, nor does he need to be physically present on the premises at all times. He should be allowed to go out, provided that it is not for excessively long periods. But even if he is out at times, he is still in a meaningful sense in control of the pharmacy, as well as being responsible for it, because he trusts those whom he has left behind to work competently within their delegated authority and not to exceed that authority while he is away. Once you start saying that a pharmacist can have responsibility for, say, three or four sets of premises and their staff, you need to question how he or she can meaningfully exercise control over those staff and premises and how he can fulfil his professional duties to patients. Surely that is not possible. That is the danger of the Bill, as drafted. Therefore, the Government will need to strike a balance when they draw up the regulations: they will need to define the role and freedoms of responsible pharmacists to ensure that responsible pharmacists do not lose professional control over their pharmacies. A balance needs to be struck between setting out detailed rules to ensure consistent good practice and leaving the pharmacist sufficient flexibility to allow for innovation and professional judgment. I hope that the Minister will take those concerns on board.