Clause 28 - The responsible pharmacist
Health Bill
3:45 pm
Jane Kennedy (Minister of State, Department of Health; Liverpool, Wavertree, Labour)
Amendment No. 92 is a minor technical amendment to the Medicines Act 1968. I appreciate the main concern that the hon. Gentleman has articulated. Under the 1968 Act, maintaining patient safety is paramount. We believe that the changes proposed and the conditions to be set in the regulations will maintain patient safety. I accept that there is anxiety about the opportunities that might arise to exploit any flexibility in the rule of “one responsible pharmacist, one pharmacy.” However, the intention is that regulations will be tightly drawn as to the specified circumstances and conditions that must be met to allow exceptions to that general rule. Those regulations will be subject to further discussion and consultation with all interested parties.
I think that, by and large, we agree that the general rule should be “one responsible pharmacist, one pharmacy”, but we also think it sensible to allow sufficient flexibility to consider and, if necessary, to respond to circumstances that may arise in which a responsible pharmacist might be permitted to be responsible for more than one pharmacy at any one time.
Let me give the Committee a couple of examples. There may be changes in the way in which pharmacy services are provided, such as a case in which the responsible pharmacist controls the supply of certain medicines in another location. For example, a pharmacy service might be provided to offer sale of over-the-counter medicines to meet the needs of a large number of people attending an event that extended over several days. The service might be delivered by trained staff, such as pharmacy technicians, with the pharmacist responsible for a pharmacy in a nearby village or town also becoming responsible for the safe running of that additional pharmacy.
Amendment No. 17 would restrict a responsible pharmacist to one pharmacy only in exercising his duty and, as I have just described, there are circumstances in which I believe that that greater flexibility should be allowed. Amendment No. 19 would restrict the responsible pharmacist as to when and how he might be absent from the pharmacy. The proposed changes are unnecessary, as there is already provision in relation to that in the Bill. We would expect the pharmacy for which the pharmacist is responsible to be the responsible pharmacist’s main place of work. We would also expect them to remain contactable so that they can provide advice or arrange for another pharmacist to do so. These provisions and other provisions on, for example, written procedures will ensure the safe and effective running of the pharmacy, including when the responsible pharmacist is away from the pharmacy. As I said, we expect the responsible pharmacist to be on the premises, by and large, but the provision allows for consideration of developing services, which is a sensible route to follow.
The new provisions will help to remove restrictions on the pharmacist’s ability to provide a range of other services, including working with other health professionals such as GPs. We intend the regulations to set out the conditions that must be met to permit an exception to the rule of “one responsible pharmacist, one pharmacy”. The House will have the opportunity to debate those regulations later.
As I said, amendment No. 92 is a minor drafting amendment that tightens the regulation-making power to provide not only that responsible pharmacists may be responsible for more than one pharmacy, but that the regulations may require the responsible pharmacist to comply with certain conditions. Such regulations need to be tightly drawn. We intend to consult representative bodies on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to consider an exception to the “one responsible pharmacist, one pharmacy rule”. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept amendment No. 92. I also hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Westbury, and that he will withdraw his amendment.