Clause 23 - Dental Corporations
Health and Social Care Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I was prompted to ask that question by a representation that I received from Lloyds Pharmacy, which is worried about clause 26 and the provisions for disqualifying practitioners. It says:
While we welcome any measure which enables individual misconduct to be dealt with effectively, we are concerned that this Clause could enable entire pharmacies or chains of pharmacies to be prevented from operating as a result of the misconduct of an individual pharmacist. Our concern hinges on what the Government means by ``person'' in the Clause.
It is referring to clause 26 and goes on to say:
If a ``person'' is defined as being a single individual only, the Clause has our full support.
If a ``person'' is defined as being a corporate body, it seems to us this could mean that, should a single employee misbehave (ie an individual pharmacist within the corporate pharmacy ``person''), an entire company could end up being removed from a Health Authority's list.
That would be highly inequitable. That confusion could be avoided if there were a provision for pharmacists and ophthalmologists similar to that in clause 23.