Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Howe (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Health Bill [HL].


Health Bill [HL]

That was a helpful reply from the Minister. It told me, if I understood her correctly, that a modus operandi is being framed between PCTs and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society—or the GPhC, as it will be—so that each works in harmony with the other. There is a distinction, albeit a fine one, between deciding that the way a pharmacist is delivering services is unsuited to the needs of an area, for whatever reason, and regulating pharmacy standards and fitness to practise. I have no wish to prevent PCTs taking action where they see that a pharmacist is not up to the mark, but that is rather different from a PCT deciding whether a particular pharmacist is fit to practise. We have to play this one very carefully to ensure that the role of the GPhC is not usurped, essentially, and that PCTs are conscious that there is a division of responsibilities that has to be observed. I am happy to go away and consider this further. I thank the Minister again for her helpful reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 114 withdrawn. Clause 24 agreed. Clause 25 agreed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c482-3GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Disability Children Disclosure of information Advertising Costs Doctors Health services Licensing Health hazards EU law Drugs Industry Health authorities Labelling NHS Pilot schemes Pharmacy Older people Primary care trusts Packaging Ombudsman Prescriptions Standards Sales Young people Shops Tobacco Social services Rural areas Trade marks Sales promotions Care Quality Commission
Legislation
Health Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk