| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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?
6.45 pm
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
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC420
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.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order. As we have heard, it will update, strengthen and clarify the society’s powers to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public. We agree with that and we support the order.
Lord Colwyn: I, too, welcome the order, which will bring pharmacists into line with other healthcare professionals. Pharmacists play an ever-increasing role in the provision of primary care. The order will recognise that fact and improve the system to ensure fitness to practice and statutorily to regulate pharmacy technicians. That will provide more protection for the public who often experience difficulty in obtaining an appointment to see their GP and are turning to their pharmacist for healthcare advice. Other professional groups, including my own of dentistry, have undertaken fitness-to-practise reforms, and it is right that the pharmacists do the same. It is important that all professional groups keep up to date and maintain a programme of continuing professional development.
The order is 73 pages long. Could the Minister remind me whether registered pharmacy technicians will be able to be an alternative to pharmacists in pharmaceutical outlets, including chemist shops and GP surgeries, where it is extremely convenient to be able to collect medicines, especially in rural areas, where there is not always a chemist in the vicinity?
Finally, when the osteopaths and chiropractic practitioners became registered they were hit with unexpectedly high registration fees and extra costs for indemnity. Has the Minister any idea—and the information may be well hidden in the 73 pages—what the cost of registration and indemnity might be for a pharmacist and pharmacy technician under these new regulations? I also stress the importance of the points made by my noble friend Lord McColl on
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC421
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I am very grateful for the broad and strong support from noble Lords opposite on this order, which is technical but extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, asked whether changes would be made following the two reviews that are currently taking place. We must wait for the White Paper, which will be published a little later this year. We do not want to pre-empt any decisions relating to that. Some changes may be made to strengthen best regulatory practice across all regulators, but pharmacists would certainly not be singled out, as it were.
In relation to disclosure of information when an investigation is taking place, I well understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It is important for patient protection that those who employ or contract with pharmacists or pharmacy technicians are alerted as soon as possible when the society is investigating an allegation. In rare cases, this will be the first warning received of a serious problem that would put patients at risk if a pharmacist or pharmacy technician continued to work. Before referring complaints to the statutory committees, the registrar of the society weeds out cases in which statutory action would not be appropriate. So there would be time. It would not be a knee-jerk reaction; a procedure would be followed before people on the outside were alerted to the complaints.
I appreciate that pharmacists or pharmacy technicians and those who represent them may find the requirement for disclosure that an allegation has been made unsettling. However, this is a tried and tested approach used by other regulators and we consider that it represents an appropriate balance between a registrant’s privacy and the need to protect members of the public, which of course is the purpose of professional regulation.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister very much for allowing me to intervene. Do I take it that someone would be suspended only over something relevant to the safety of the patient, not for some other misconduct? Would it be related only to whether the technician was a danger to his patient?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I will write to the noble Lord with clarification, but in any case when a complaint was so serious that it was being
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC422
I shall respond to the other questions. With regard to the costs of registration and indemnity, there are no hidden figures in these pages. However, increases in registration charges can be made only after consultation with the registrant, so I would not have thought there would be any great hikes in charges. I am sure the registrants themselves would oppose such a measure. We are taking time to explore the whole issue of indemnity insurance, but many pharmacists already pay for indemnity costs, so I imagine there would be no huge change there.
On the use of English, we are glad to see that it is important in relation to attitudes and behaviours in misconduct cases. It is good and proper that the use of English is considered in all those cases. With regard to the change in the size and composition of the council, it should not be read as the Privy Council. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, asked if the Privy Council could vary the composition of the society of the council without a request. I understand that, yes, that would be possible, but there are no plans to do so. It is simply potentially possible.
I do not know if I have left any questions unanswered. Members may wish to remind me now; if not, I will gladly respond in writing.
Lord Colwyn: May I remind the Minister of the question of whether a pharmacy technician and a pharmacist have equal standing in the running of a chemist shop?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. Pharmacy technicians can work in community pharmacies. We think that would be of benefit, especially to rural communities, as the noble Lord indicated, but they would have to be under the supervision of a registered pharmacist.
Having answered those questions, I am delighted that we are all in broad agreement on this order, and I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): If that completes the business of the Grand Committee today, the Committee stands adjourned.
- The Committee adjourned at 6.58 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |