Health Bill

Section 72A(7)(b) makes specific provisions for regulations in respect of the responsible pharmacist’s absence from the pharmacy. I can certainly reassure noble Lords that the golf course is not likely to feature in those regulations; neither is the test match, honourable though that may be. I have already stated that the general rule would be that each pharmacy has its own responsible pharmacist. We expect to set down in regulations the extent to which the responsible pharmacist may be absent from the pharmacy and the conditions to be met, following consultation with the pharmacy profession and others. It is expected that the responsible pharmacist will spend the majority of his time in the pharmacy for which he is responsible so that he can fulfil his statutory duty to ensure the safe and effective running of the pharmacy. Furthermore, the responsible pharmacist will be expected to remain readily contactable by pharmacy staff to provide advice when he is absent, or to arrange for another pharmacist to be contactable. We will also seek views on whether the responsible pharmacist should ensure that he is able to return to the pharmacy without undue delay. The responsible pharmacist will be required to set down procedures and to determine the allocation of tasks to staff according to their competence, including when the pharmacist is absent, to ensure that patient safety is maintained, as I have said. I have also explained that a record must be kept of who is the responsible pharmacist for the pharmacy premises at any time on any particular day. That record will also indicate when the responsible pharmacist is absent from the pharmacy. The main aim behind these provisions is to allow the pharmacist to provide healthcare elsewhere in the pharmacy or away from the pharmacy premises. However, with safe systems of work and competent trained staff, these provisions should also allow the pharmacy to continue to operate for limited periods of time when the responsible pharmacist is absent—for example, to enable him or her to take a lunch break. Otherwise, if patients visit the pharmacy while the pharmacist is taking a break and the whole premises is registered as a pharmacy, they will not be able to obtain any medicines until the pharmacist returns—not even general sales of these medicines, which can be purchased from other shops without the presence of a pharmacist. Where the responsible pharmacist is absent from the pharmacy, the supervision requirements in respect of the preparation, assembly, sale and supply of certain medicines will still need to be met. Finally, there is a risk that this amendment would bring about a lack of legal certainty as to the requirements regarding absence. It would have the potential to cast into doubt the validity of the regulations, because every provision of those regulations would always be open to challenge on the ground that the challenger did not consider it reasonable. There is considerable room for debate on what is reasonable in any context. That is why the scope of regulation-making powers is not usually qualified by such an inexact term. I hope that in the light of the reassurances and explanations that I have given, the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.