Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007

The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for introducing this order so succinctly and clearly. It is an order which we broadly welcome. As she said, it serves to bring up to date the rules governing the regulation of pharmacists in Great Britain and, for the first time, to put in place arrangements to regulate pharmacy technicians in England and Wales under the supervision of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The order has been the subject of extensive consultation within the pharmacy profession and outside it. As regards the principal provisions in it, we are satisfied that it reflects the society’s policy—which we very definitely share—to strengthen and clarify its powers to protect and promote the health and safety of the general public. In so doing, the order completely replaces the Pharmacy Act 1954. I am pleased that there has been no question of diluting the role or function of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as the body responsible for regulating the profession. We have said many times how strongly we support the concept of professional self-regulation, and in the case of pharmacists we see self-regulation, as set out here, encompassing the complete spectrum of regulatory activity, from registration to the setting of standards, and from education, training and continuing professional development to disciplinary procedures. The order is entirely consistent with the provisions contained within the society’s Royal Charter, and builds usefully upon them. As the Minister well knows, much thought has recently been devoted, under the Donaldson and Foster reviews, to the whole area of professional regulation in medicine and allied professions. We do not yet know the outcome of those reviews. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that, whatever the outcome in relation to other professional disciplines, she does not envisage substantial changes being necessary to the content of this order. Nothing, of course, can remain set in stone for ever, but I hope that after the very thorough work done by the society, its members and, indeed, the department, there will be no question of having to go back again to square one. Perhaps the most obvious way in which the new rules represent an improvement over the old ones is in respect of fitness-to-practise procedures. As we have seen with doctors, dentists and other professions, it is right for the relevant regulatory body to have at its disposal a menu of options—in this instance, not only the power to strike a pharmacist off the register but also powers to suspend a pharmacist or to place conditions on his registration, as the Minister has indicated. Without such powers the public could be at risk, so we welcome these new provisions. However, in its response to the consultation, the society raised one concern which I notice was not accepted by the Government. Article 49(3) provides that, where an allegation is referred to a fitness to practise committee, the society must inform departmental ministers, the local PCT and the person’s employer. The worry here is that if the allegation is false—and perhaps maliciously so—a huge amount of damage could be done to the reputation and standing of the individual and of his employing organisation by the fact of the matter becoming public knowledge before it is resolved. To guard against that contingency, the society suggested that notification in certain well-defined types of case need not be mandatory but could instead be discretionary, subject to clear rules. Why was this proposal not accepted? The second conspicuous area of change in the society’s powers relates to education and training. These changes are, equally, very welcome. Up to now, there has been some uncertainty about the society’s powers in relation to education. The order not only clarifies the position but also provides for the education committee to have a wider role in such areas as revalidation and recertification. This is all part of the general drive to promote professionalism in all its varying aspects and that, surely, has to be the way forward for a profession on which the NHS, patients and the public are increasingly becoming reliant. In that connection, it is welcome to see in Article 12(5) that knowledge and use of English is included as one of the factors which may be considered as part of the overall professional qualification. Similarly, I was pleased to see in Article 48(2) that a pharmacist’s or technician’s ““attitudes and behaviour”” are to be regarded as integral to the judgment of professional misconduct. The clear implication is that attitudes and behaviour are important elements of what it means to be professionally qualified, and that is surely right. I have two further questions. As the Minister made clear, the registration and regulation of pharmacy technicians under the order applies to England and Wales. That is because in Scotland the regulation of professions recognised after 1998 is a devolved matter. We often hear that diversity in healthcare arrangements north and south of the border is one of the glories of devolution. I am pleased that the Minister accepts that there is an issue to be addressed here. With dentists and the professions allied to dentistry, it was possible to achieve what was effectively a UK-wide regulation by means of an agreement between the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. I am pleased that the Minister and her counterparts in Edinburgh are looking to achieve a similar uniformity of regulation for pharmacy technicians. That is very welcome. Concern was also expressed by the society that under Article 5(1), the Privy Council has a power to alter the size and composition of the council, subject to specified limitations. The society’s charter provides for the Privy Council to do so only if it receives an application to do so from the society in pursuance of a special general resolution. Can the Minister confirm that the order should not be read as meaning that the Privy Council has a power to vary the council’s composition in the absence of any such request from the society? The order has been long awaited by the pharmaceutical profession. We wish it well.