Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 79:"Page 26, line 3, at end insert—" ““(   )   the conditions under which an absence under paragraph (b) may reasonably occur,”” The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 79 brings us back to the issue of whether and in what circumstances a pharmacist may absent himself physically from the pharmacy. I have already said that a pharmacist can, in my opinion, remain responsible for a pharmacy without necessarily being present on the pharmacy premises at all hours of the working day. I think that that is accepted by all. Having said that, I also think that any absences from the pharmacy need to be genuine and necessary. What sorts of reasons would count as genuine and necessary? The pharmacist may need to exercise his professional responsibilities offsite—for example, he may need to visit a patient in a residential care home or to attend a professional seminar for part of the day. As the Minister mentioned earlier, the pharmacist should at all times remain contactable by the pharmacy staff in case a matter arises that needs to be referred to him personally. Such absences should be perfectly uncontentious. We do not want to encourage the pharmacist to be absent from the premises for no good or compelling reason. Being out on the golf course would not be a good reason; equally, running another pharmacy would not be a good reason, other than in the kinds of circumstances that the Minister outlined earlier. Nor should a pharmacist set off without telling anyone where he is going or how he can be contacted. Those are the broad parameters. Within those parameters it should, in practice, be for the company owning the pharmacy, in discussion with the pharmacist, to decide when a pharmacist needs to be present on the premises and what services are provided at which times. I do not think that the Bill needs to spell out those sorts of detail, but we need to be clear about them. Much will depend on local circumstances. If a rural primary care centre is closed at particular times, the local pharmacy may also be fairly quiet at those times, which could allow for the pharmacist to be absent. On the other hand, in a busy urban location, there may need to be continuous pharmacist cover. These matters are best left to professional judgment and to standard operating procedures. We should not seek, either in the Bill or in regulations, to limit the period of time during which the pharmacist may be away. That would not be workable. On the other hand, unlimited absence is not acceptable either, because it would call into question whether the pharmacist was really in proper control of the pharmacy. We come back to the balance that needs to be struck, both in the regulations and in terms of clinical governance. As a matter of good practice, it might be advisable to recommend in guidance that the times when the pharmacist is present in the pharmacy are clearly apparent to the public, and what activities and services are available during those times. Again, though, I suggest that these are not matters to be spelt out in the Bill. I hope that the Minister and I will be in broad agreement on these matters, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I beg to move.