---

Health Bill

My Lords, being able to specify in regulations the qualifications and experience that a responsible pharmacist must have is an important safeguard. However, I can reassure the noble Earl that when we refer to qualifications we are not thinking in terms of any significant extra formal or academic qualification over and above registration as a pharmacist. As we outlined in the information paper that we published in January 2006, this might mean, for example, that to become a responsible pharmacist, someone has to have been qualified as a registered pharmacist for a number of years and, in the case of a community pharmacy, have experience of working in a registered pharmacy in that setting. Of course, the UK must, as a matter of European law, recognise the qualifications of pharmacists qualified in other European Community member states. Nothing in this regulation-making power is intended to be inconsistent with that. Indeed, any regulations made under this power which were inconsistent with that would be susceptible to legal challenge. However, one option that we might wish to pursue, subject to proper consultation with the profession and its interests, might be that the pharmaceutical societies could include on the register of pharmacists an annotation against the names of those pharmacists who have the necessary length of qualification and the appropriate experience in a community pharmacy to take on the role of responsible pharmacist. That would make the position easier and more transparent for pharmacists and pharmacy owners alike. In legal terms, such an annotation could be viewed as a qualification. Therefore, retaining power to make provision about both the qualifications and the experience that a person must have if he is to be a responsible pharmacist would be needed to introduce such an approach through regulations. We have also made clear our intention—which I repeat today—to consult all interested parties on the development of these regulations. For example, the timing of their introduction, to allow the professional regulatory bodies, pharmacy owners and others to put in place arrangements to enable pharmacists wishing to take on this important role to meet the requirements, is essential. We clearly recognise the need for the pharmacist workforce to be able to meet any such conditions that are set, while maintaining the public’s ready access to pharmaceutical services. So, we are well-seized of the need to take the profession with us in this area and we will ensure that it is fully involved in regulations made under this provision. I hope that I have explained why we feel that the words ““qualifications and experience”” are appropriate to use in the legislation. We will carefully consider all these issues with interested parties through widespread discussion and consultation in determining what conditions might be set to ensure that a responsible pharmacist is able to meet his or her statutory duties fully and effectively—and to maintain public safety, which is the point behind the legislation. That is the be-all and end-all of what we are trying to do. I hope that that has provided some explanation and reassurance to the noble Earl.