Clause 26 - Control of pharmacy premises: bodies corporate
Health Bill
3:45 pm
Jane Kennedy (Minister of State, Department of Health; Liverpool, Wavertree, Labour)
The limitation on the number of pharmacies that a pharmacist can supervise and be responsible for is something that we shall come to on clause 28, but it might help the Committee if we deal quickly with it now. The clause sets the general rule that a pharmacist will generally be in charge only of one pharmacy. Clause 26 replaces the requirement under section 71 of the Medicines Act 1968 that requires each pharmacy carried on by a body corporate to be under the personal control of the pharmacist with a requirement for each pharmacy to have a responsible pharmacist. Those requirements are essentially the same as those in clause 25, which relates to small pharmacies owned by individuals and partnerships, except for subsection (1)(a) of the new section 71 that deals with the superintendent pharmacist, which is really what the clause is about.
A body corporate conducting a pharmacy business must appoint a superintendent pharmacist, the rule of whom is company wide. The superintendent pharmacist is there to ensure that the body corporate meets the statutory requirements relating to pharmacy premises. He has an important standard-setting role for the conduct of the pharmacy business, including how it reflects standards set by the professional regulatory bodies. The clause ensures that the role of the superintendent pharmacist will continue, as now, under the Medicines Act. The responsible pharmacist, under clause 28, will continue to be under the direction of the superintendent pharmacist.
We sought views on the role of the superintendent pharmacist, as the pharmacist in control of each pharmacy is subject to the general direction of the superintendent pharmacist. The response to public consultation was that more detailed debate was needed on the role of the superintendent pharmacist before considering changes so, for now, we are concentrating on the responsible pharmacist as the key change that will end the uncertainties that we have just debated about personal control requirements.
We shall continue to discuss with the profession how we can develop further the role and where further regulatory reform needs to take place. As now, the responsible pharmacist will continue to be under the direction of the superintendent pharmacist and, other than the changes that we have discussed, there will be little further change to the role.