---

Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 31:"Page 25, line 36, leave out from ““time”” to end of line 38." The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment returns to similar ground to that covered by the noble Earl’s amendment. I, too, came away from our deliberations in Grand Committee uneasy about the proposals to change the regime of one pharmacist having to be present at all times in one pharmacy. The noble Earl argued the case on the grounds of patient safety, which is entirely valid, but I want to come at it from a slightly different point of view: quality of service and advice. In Grand Committee I set out the case—quite well, I think—for maintaining what is perhaps one of the most valuable parts of the health service in the high street: the availability of a qualified pharmacist to advise and give information about medicines and treatment, often where there are very few other sources of information. We talked a lot about how pharmacists are often extremely important in using their skills to analyse how someone’s medication is working. That quite often happens when someone comes in for a repeat prescription, when it may be more evident than at the time when a GP made an order for a prescription that something is not right. That is a very valuable service. The Minister cited two examples of why the Government’s proposal is preferable. He mentioned vending machines in Australia, as we have heard, and temporary pharmacies at rock festivals. I do not find either of those examples particularly compelling. I am not being flippant, but I genuinely think that there is much to be lost if the existing guarantee that a responsible pharmacist will be in a pharmacy is removed. That, frankly, is not made up for by the examples he gave. I tabled this amendment to offer the Minister another opportunity to set out examples of what he believes would and, crucially, would not be permitted under the new regime if the Bill went ahead as it is. I need to be convinced a bit more. I am not one to stand in the way of technological progress, but I believe we are light years away from technology sensitive enough to deal with some of the conditions people will have, and I do not believe detection will be possible at long distance, at least not of the quality that is possible face to face. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some more reassurance. I beg to move.