Health Bill

Let me first respond to Amendment No. 80. I remind the Committee that Sections 10 and 52 of the Medicines Act as amended by Clause 25, together with Clause 31, already enable those activities that must be undertaken by a pharmacist, or be personally supervised by a pharmacist, to be specified by order. For example, we expect that a pharmacist will still be required to clinically assess all new prescriptions and all repeat prescriptions where there has been a change to one or more of the patient’s medicines or the patient’s condition has materially changed. That is a good example of where the responsibility will continue. Where supervision is undertaken remotely—and only a pharmacist will be able to supervise remotely—Clause 25 enables conditions to be set in regulations. The responsible pharmacist will determine when the sales of applied medicines can be supervised from another location provided the conditions within the regulations are met. This should be recorded in the procedures set by the responsible pharmacist. In making these decisions, the responsible pharmacist will need to consider the particular circumstances of the pharmacy and its staff in order to fulfil his statutory duty to ensure the safe and effective running of the pharmacy, including the safe and accurate supply of medicines. Where a pharmacist remotely supervises the sale or supply of medicines, subject to consultation, we would expect appropriate technologies to be in place to allow face-to-face contact with pharmacy staff and patients as necessary. However, with the development of the kinds of modern technologies I have already mentioned, we no longer believe it is essential for the pharmacist to be physically present in the pharmacy at all times to maintain patient safety—provided certain safeguards such as clear operating procedures and trained and competent staff are in place. Amendment No. 81 would delete new Section 72A(7)(d), which provides specific regulation-making powers in respect of the circumstances in which the responsible pharmacist may supervise relevant activities at a pharmacy of which he is not the responsible pharmacist. We acknowledge that Section 72A(6) provides wide regulation-making powers in respect of the responsible pharmacist and would include addressing the circumstances in which he is supervising relevant activities at a pharmacy for which he is not responsible, even without Section 72A(7)(d). Nevertheless, we feel it is helpful to put it beyond doubt in the Bill, through Section 72A(7)(d), that regulations can address this aspect in respect of the responsible pharmacist. An example of where a pharmacist might supervise relevant activities at a pharmacy for which he is not responsible could be where a pharmacy business owns two pharmacies, each with its own responsible pharmacist. It may be appropriate on occasions for the responsible pharmacist for one pharmacy to supervise the preparation, sale and supply of medicines in the second pharmacy while the second responsible pharmacist is away from his pharmacy, perhaps meeting with his GP colleagues or making a visit to a patient’s home to provide advice. In this scenario, we want to be sure that the responsible pharmacist does not take on too many responsibilities at the same time, thereby undermining his ability to secure the safe and effective running of the pharmacy. Section 72A(7)(d) makes it clear that provisions can be made through regulations to ensure this. Such provisions might limit the number of pharmacies which the responsible pharmacist can supervise at the same time, or the length of time during which he can carry out supervisory activity in another pharmacy while being the responsible pharmacist for his own pharmacy. They might also limit the other activities in which the responsible pharmacist may be engaged—the golf course comes to mind again—in either pharmacy, beyond the sale and supply of medicines. We will consult interested stakeholders on the detailed provisions to be included in regulations. This seeks to explain why Amendment No. 80 is unnecessary; and Amendment No. 81 deletes a helpful provision; I hope that I have made it clear how it might be used. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, we have set out in the guidance for pharmacists’ prescribing that clinical governance must be satisfied. We would normally expect someone other than a prescribing pharmacist to be involved in the supply of medicine.