Clause 16 - Accountable officers and their responsibilities as to controlled drugs
Health Bill
10:45 am
Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Health; Westbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in clause 16, page 14, line 6, after ‘regulations’, insert
‘having consulted with representative bodies’.
We are really rattling through the Bill now. We are at part 3 already—who would have thought it? Let us make sure that we keep up the momentum. I hope that the Minister will give lots of satisfactory responses to our amendment; that would expedite the process.
Amendment No. 11 is simple; it has to do with consulting representative bodies before provision is made to require designated bodies to nominate or appoint persons who have prescribed responsibilities on controlled drugs. I hope, Mr. Illsley, that we will have a stand part debate on clause 16—not this morning, I suspect, but at some point. I shall therefore be brisk and to the point now, although there is a great deal to cover.
Controlled drugs are important. The issue stems from Dame Janet Smith’s report on the Shipman tragedies, and it is important and appropriate that we should reflect on it and give it due place in our deliberations. If we are fortunate enough to have a clause stand part debate, Mr. Illsley, I will make no apology for being a little expansive, although I shall not be so this morning.
The amendment has to do with the representations that we have had from what one might call representative bodies, in particular the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, whose nose has been put somewhat out of joint by those who drafted the Bill. The society does not appear to have featured at all well, despite its having been given to understand that it would continue to have a fairly prominent role in the inspection of the regime for controlled drugs.
We can accept that that regime is unsatisfactory as it stands. It is a sort of polyglot arrangement of inspections that is clearly not fit for purpose. Broadly speaking, we welcome the element of the Bill under discussion, stemming, as it does, from Dame Janet’s inquiry. Of course, the Bill does not include that inquiry’s precise recommendations, but it is reflective of them and we are broadly happy with that.
However, it is a pity that we appear to have missed an opportunity to include in the Bill reference to those representative bodies, and not just because they are representative of particular interest groups. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, specifically, is already involved in regulating the system that we have. The society is expert and contains people who have been doing such things for many years. It is a pity that its expertise has not been recognised and that it is not included in the Bill. I am sure that other bodies have also not been included. Any regulations that may be made under this clause would be improved through consultation with the bodies that I have described. That is the purpose of amendment No. 11.