The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Cohen,
Harry
(Leyton and Wanstead)
(Lab)
Drew,
Mr. David
(Stroud)
(Lab/Co-op)
Flint,
Caroline
(Minister of State, Department of
Health)
Gidley,
Sandra
(Romsey)
(LD)
Hall,
Patrick
(Bedford)
(Lab)
Jackson,
Glenda
(Hampstead and Highgate)
(Lab)
Lepper,
David
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Lab/Co-op)
McIsaac,
Shona
(Cleethorpes)
(Lab)
Moss,
Mr. Malcolm
(North-East Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
Newmark,
Mr. Brooks
(Braintree)
(Con)
O'Brien,
Mr. Stephen
(Eddisbury)
(Con)
Pelling,
Mr. Andrew
(Croydon, Central)
(Con)
Pugh,
Dr. John
(Southport)
(LD)
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
Todd,
Mr. Mark
(South Derbyshire)
(Lab)
Ward,
Claire
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Whitehead,
Dr. Alan
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
Susan
Griffiths, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The following
also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 30
January
2007
[John
Bercow
in the
Chair]
Draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007
10.30
am
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Caroline Flint):
I beg to move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy
Technicians Order 2007.
This is the first time I have
spoken in a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow,
and I am sure that it will be a very pleasurable experience.
The order is about patient
safety and public protection. I think I can say at this first
opportunity that all parties support the regulations. More than
anything else, they will allow pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to
play a fuller role in the delivery of health services. That is
important to every community, but particularly, I think it is fair to
say, to rural communities, for whom the regulations have added
bonuses.
Patients must
be at the heart of any changes to regulations, whether for doctors, for
nurses, or, as we are discussing today, for pharmacists and pharmacy
technicians. The order fits that programme and is important in several
respects. It follows the model used for dentists, nurses, opticians and
other health professionals, and it is important to bring pharmacists
and pharmacy technicians within that health family. However, the order
also makes regulation more responsive to patients needs and
better at protecting them.
Committee members may have
received an e-mail from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society saying how
much it supports the order and how the Government, the society and
other key stakeholders have worked closely on it to update,
strengthen and clarify the societys powers to protect,
promote and maintain the health and safety of the public. The order
will improve the societys powers to protect patients in a
number of ways. It will make clearer the societys
responsibilities to protect the public and its accountability in doing
so, it will reform the societys registration process, and it
will bring pharmacy technicians in England and Wales into statutory
regulation for the first time, which is important to their delivery of
increasingly common clinical services such as sexual health services,
drug treatment services, the testing of blood pressure. The involvement
of pharmacists from the wider health family has advanced the delivery
of those health care services.
Pharmacists have long been
involved in supplying medicines and in advising people on their use.
However, we are entering a new era in which the direct clinical care of
patients will become a core business. The prescribing of medicines is
no longer just the domain of doctors, dentists and nurses. Since 2003,
pharmacists have acted as supplementary prescribers as part of agreed
clinical management plans and, as I speak, some pharmacists are
completing additional training to become independent prescribers of a
full range of medicines. That will become commonplace, and the new
community pharmacy arrangements across Great Britain will for the first
time contain all clinical services.
The demand for clinical
services from pharmacists continues to grow. In England, we will
introduce pharmacists with a special interest who, when suitably
accredited, will specialise in a particular clinical area, just like
GPs with a special interest. Pharmacists will also continue to play a
huge part in educating, advising and supporting other health care
professionals, including doctors and non-medical prescribers, on the
prescription, supply and administration of medicines. Pharmacy
technicians are also starting to provide more direct clinical care for
patients, and the trend is likely to continue as health reforms
progress with the more flexible use of staff who are properly trained
to undertake roles that increase safe access to medicines and
care.
The downside is
that there is great scope for pharmacists to do harm if they do not
perform properly and if they are not properly regulated. In recognition
of that, pharmacists were the earliest health care professionals to be
statutorily regulated. However, the most recent legislation to do so
was the Pharmacy Act 1954. It is agreed that the legislation has served
the profession well, but compared with that of other health profession
regulators, it is out of date and limited in scope.
We wish to ensure that people
who use the services of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians can
benefit from the same safeguards as those recently introduced for
doctors, nurses, allied health professions, opticians and dentists. To
bring pharmacist regulation in line with that of other professions, the
main provisions are the requirement to undergo continuing professional
development so that registrants keep their knowledge, skills and
aptitude up to date as long as they practise, and a wider range of
powers and sanctions relating to investigating and dealing with
allegations of impaired fitness to practise. Impaired fitness includes
ill health as well as performance and conduct.
To protect the public, new
sanctions include the ability to suspend registrants, when necessary,
while their fitness to practise is investigated and adjudicated.
Currently, that cannot happen. The sanctions also include the ability
to restrict the practice of those unfit practitioners to areas where
they are safe to practise, by attaching conditions to their
registration. Members of the public may find it strange that the
society does not currently have the flexibility to do
that.
The order
introduces new powers enabling the society to disclose
fitness-to-practise information when that is in the public interest,
and to require others to disclose information to it about
fitness-to-practise matters. There is a new duty to co-operate with
other public authorities and bodies with an interest in pharmacy
matters and there are new powers to require practising registrants to
be covered by an adequate and appropriate indemnity arrangement,
although the implementation of that provision will be delayed while we,
in conjunction with the other regulatory bodies,
consider further the implications of a court judgment, handed down in
the summer, about indemnity arrangements.
The order also contains
provisions specific to the world of pharmacy. As I said, it is an
opportunity to extend statutory regulation to pharmacy technicians, in
recognition of how their role has developed. For example, in some
hospitals, pharmacy technicians will take the medication history of a
newly admitted patient. It is entirely right that those who use such a
service be protected by safeguards appropriate to those
technicians skill, knowledge and responsibility.
Hon. Members will have noticed
that the provisions on the regulation of pharmacy technicians relate
only to England and Wales. That is due to the separate powers of the
Scottish Parliament to enact its own legislation on devolved health
care professions, which are those not subject to statutory regulation
at the time of the Scotland Act 1998. However, I have agreed in
principle with the Minister for Health and Community Care in Scotland
that later this year we will introduce an amending order, needing
approval from both the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments, that
will extend the scope of the order to encompass Scottish pharmacy
technicians.
To make
sure that the regulation of the profession happens consistently across
Great Britain, we do not propose to commence the provisions of the
order that relate to the regulation of pharmacy technicians until the
amendments to its scope are in place. Another provision, peculiar to
the professions involved, is the introduction of a division of the
regulators registers to distinguish between those
registrantsthe vast majorityin practice and the very
few who do not actively practise, such as those who have retired or are
on a career break, or who, although they have qualified as pharmacists,
work in other fields and do not practise as a pharmacist or pharmacy
technician.
For those
people, it will not be practical or relevant to keep up with continuing
professional development or to be covered by indemnity insurance
arrangements. I am satisfied that the definition in the order of what
is meant by practising is broad enough to ensure that
anyone whose work may have a direct or indirect impact on those using
pharmacy services will be required to meet the requirements for
practising registrants. That includes those working in academic
research, management, journalism and industry who give advice on
pharmacy matters and hold themselves out to be pharmacists or pharmacy
technicians. The order contains provisions in the form of offences and
the provision of guidance that will support that.
Hon. Members will appreciate
that legislation of this size and scope will have been in production
for some time. It has been suggested that it would be better to hold
back issues such as the consideration of this order to amend the
Pharmacy Act 1954 until after the release of the findings of the chief
medical officers review of medical regulation and the parallel
review of non-medical regulation in the light of the fifth report of
the Shipman inquiry. However, the contents of the order are essentially
a long-overdue overhaul of the regulation of pharmacists and the
administration of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
The extension of the statutory regulation of pharmacy technicians is
also in the public interest. The issues
covered by the order need to be addressed irrespective of the findings
of those two reviews. They in no way pre-empt the reviews
recommendations or the Governments response to them.
The order has been well
researched and has found broad favour and support from those most
affected by it. It has been subject to full publication and public
consultation as required by the Health Act 1999, under which the order
is made. A copy of that is available on the Department of Health
website, as is the report on the consultation
itself.
I commend the
order to the Committee.
10.39
am
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): I am delighted to serve
under your chairmanship for a second time, Mr. Bercow. I
place on record my thanks to the Minister, whose introduction to the
order summarised the overall position and the representations clearly
and succinctly. As she rightly said, the order has our broad support.
We are not dealing with anything contentious, although it is important
to raise a few
issues.
As
the Minister said, the order updates the rules governing the regulation
of pharmacists in Great Britain. For the first time, it puts in place
arrangements to regulate pharmacy technicians in England and Wales
under the supervision of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. She said
that she plans to make sure that those arrangements are extended
through liaison with her counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. What
plans, if any, has she to extend matters to Northern Ireland, given the
current
arrangements?
The
order has been the subject of extensive consultation within the
pharmacy profession and indeed outside it. As Lord McColl of Dulwich
has said in another place, regarding the principle provisions of the
order,
we are satisfied
that it reflects the societys policywhich we very
definitely shareto strengthen and clarify its powers to protect
and promote the health and safety of the general
public.[Official Report, House of Lords, 24
January 2007; Vol. 688, c.
418.]
We also note
that the order completely replaces the Pharmacy Act 1954, although, as
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has said, many of the tried and
trusted aspects of that Act are still to be found in the order. I am
particularly grateful to Corinne Hunt of the RPS who took the trouble
to make a special appointment and see me in my surgery in my
constituency before Christmas, to make sure that I was fully briefed
and aware of matters, in anticipation of todays
order.
As Her
Majestys official Opposition, I am glad to confirm Conservative
support for the concept of professional self-regulation and I welcome
the fact that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society retains responsibility
for regulating the profession. As we await the outcome of the Donaldson
review and the Foster review, I seek the Ministers assurance
that the concept of professional self-regulation will not be eroded. In
particular, does she expect the reviews to affect the order? When are
they expected to be
published?
Looking at
the different disciplinary options, the options that are put at the
disposal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as regards
fitness-to-practise
procedures are a welcome improvement on the old rules. They will give a
range of powers, for example, not only to strike pharmacists off the
register but to suspend them or place conditions upon their
registration. We welcome those new provisions and trust that they are
part of the proportionate response to the risks around patient
safety.
In
introducing the order in another place, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
specifically mentioned pharmacists with a special interest. She
outlined the Governments plans for pharmacists and their
contribution
in:
education,
advertising and supporting other health care
professionals.
However,
figures released to us by the Department of Health reveal that PCTs are
not using the range of services that can already be commissioned from
pharmacies, with only a tiny percentage offering additional services.
For example, only 0.21 per cent. offer anti-coagulant monitoring and,
even worse, only 0.03 per cent. offer services to schools despite
advice from the Department of Health. In addition, again despite
Department of Health guidance, there has been a staggering 53 per cent.
decline in pharmacies with extended weekday openings and a 21 per cent.
decline in pharmacies with Sunday and bank holiday openings. Those were
the new figures released by the Government themselves on 21 November
2006. To what does the Minister attribute that? Do I see yet another
cut in front-line patient services due to the Government-made NHS cash
crisis?
Finally, I
reiterate for the record two concerns raised by Lord McColl in the
other place. First, there is the matter of discretionary rather than
mandatory notification to protect the reputation of pharmacists and
pharmacy technicians in the case of false or malicious rumoursa
suggestion made by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society but rejected by the
Government. Second, under article 5(1), the Privy Council has a power
to alter the size and composition of the council, subject to specified
limitations, whereas the societys charter provides for the
Privy Council to do so only if it receives an application from the
society in pursuance of a special general resolution. Baroness Royall
of Blaisdon said that it would be possible that the
Privy Council could vary the composition of the societys
council without a request, but gave an undertaking
that:
there are no plans
to do so.[Official Report, House of Lords, 24
January 2007; Vol. 688, c.
422.].
So I ask the Minister why
the order does just that. Is she certain that the rights of the society
will be upheld and not diminished by the
order?
Although I hope
that the Minister will address the concerns that I have raised, I
recognise the concerns of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society that its
ability to protect the public is already somewhat deficient, and will
be further compromised by any delay in the order. With that in mind,
the Opposition will not seek to hinder the order, and indeed will
support it.
10.46
am
Sandra
Gidley (Romsey) (LD): I too generally support the order. I
do not know whether I should declare an interest, in that I am a member
of the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society, but I hope that there are no financial issues
involved and that I shall not find myself up before the statutory
committee at any stage. In any case, I do not think that I have
anything other than a professional
interest.
The order
has clearly been the result of extensive consultation with the
profession, which is to be welcomed. There is 99 per cent. agreement on
what is proposed and I welcome the Ministers positive words
about pharmacy and what pharmacists can
offer.
The timing of
the document is interesting. The Minister herself alluded to it, and
commented on the Foster review and the Donaldson review, which some
people considered might be a reason for delay. Having said that, it has
been made clear that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society wishes to proceed
because its current powers are inadequate for a modern day regulator.
For example, it has no power to suspend or to place conditions on
registration.
The
Minister may be aware of a recent case before the statutory committee
in which the chair of the committee was attacked with an iron bar. It
seems that there was an element of premeditation in the attack, as most
of us do not carry such items around. There are no powers to suspend
the pharmacist in question until the appeal procedure has been
completed. In most cases, I would say that there has to be an appeal
period and that public safety would not be compromised by that.
However, it would be useful if the Minister could indicate the
circumstances in which the powers in the order would be used, because
if used extensively they would also have an effect on individual
pharmacists. We hope that the procedures will be fully followed in all
cases, but we would like some reassurance on the point.
I am aware of the
growing backlog of disciplinary cases that are related to health and
fitness to practise. Current provisions mean that there is very little
that can be done if people have a health problem that may temporarily
render them unfit to practise, without there yet being any behaviour
that would justify suspension or striking off. I welcome a more humane
way of tackling the problems that arise when people sometimes have
problems and need help rather than
censure.
I return briefly to the Foster
review. There is concern that the review may recommend a split in the
Royal Pharmaceutical Societys functions. The society is
unusual, because although it has a regulatory function, it has a
representative one as well and there is a degree of conflict between
those functions. Some in the profession think that the functions should
be split completely. Others say that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
is working well and if it aint broke, dont fix it. The
reality of the Foster review is that we are potentially faced with the
prospect of a lay majority on a council that also has a representative
function. Some feel that that is incompatible.
I welcome the comments made by
the hon. Member for Eddisbury. He referred to article 5 and the Privy
Council. The Privy Council has the power to alter the size and
composition of the council other than at the societys request.
As has been pointed out, that is not compatible with the
societys charter, which states that such a change can take
place only at the request of the society.
If, following the Foster review,
we reach a position where the society retains its dual role but the
review recommends a lay majority, that is clearly not what many
pharmacists would see as being in the best interests of representation
of their profession. It would be useful if the Minister could clarify
the matter and when we might hear more from Foster.
Most of the other points that I
wish to query have been raised. The point about the regulation of
Scottish technicians has been covered by the Minister. I was pleased to
hear that the amending order will be in place later this year. Northern
Ireland was mentioned: Foster suggests that the Pharmaceutical Society
of Northern Ireland should consider a merger. That has to be considered
in the long term.
That is the bulk of the points
that I wish to make at this stage. Hopefully the Minister will be able
to provide greater clarification when she sums up. The public and the
profession alike welcome the proposals because they will improve
patient safety. Although the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has so far
done an exemplary job in protecting the patient, it is clear that as we
move into the 21st century it needs some help in adopting a more
flexible approach in what can and cannot be
done.
10.53
am
Mr.
Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): May I add
my comments to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury in
saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the
first time, Mr. Bercow?
I shall be
brief. The order is welcome. As an ex-Minister for health in Northern
Irelandalmost a decade agoI can remember trying to
encourage more work for pharmacists and more front-line services
through that outlet. Here we are almost 10 years later still trying, it
would seem, to encourage the same kind of involvement. It would be
interesting if the Minister replied to my hon. Friends question
about the statistics that we in the Conservative party have gleaned
that show that pharmacy services are not being used at the level that
we would like. Perhaps the Minister has some targets and can tell us
how close the Government are reaching to the targets to use to the full
the high standards of professionalism that pharmacists have to
offer.
Looking at the
order, I see a document that replicates closely some legislation that I
had a hand in introducing back in 1993: I refer to the
Osteopaths Act 1993, which was followed by the
Chiropractors Act 1994. Those were milestones at the time.
They were obviously Government-sponsored Bills, and I was lucky enough
to be high in the order for private Members Bills and took the
Osteopaths Act through. I can remember receiving some representations
then from pharmacists saying, Hey, what about us? We are still
labouring under the Pharmacy Act 1954; we would like to be
modernised. Here we are some years later with the document that
will, I think, give them the professional stature and basis that they
asked for.
I have very
few questions. The Foster and Donaldson reviews have already been
mentioned twice. However, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society raised its
concern with us in its briefing, so it would be helpful if the Minister
could allay its fears that the findings of those
two reports will in any shape or form jeopardise the excellent work and
progress that has been made under the
order.
10.55
am
Caroline
Flint:
There have been some thoughtful and constructive
points and questions raised in this short
debate.
To go through
the questions, first, Northern Ireland has its own order, dating from
1976. Updating that is being considered as part of the White Paper
review. Regulation in Northern Ireland is covered by the Pharmaceutical
Society of Northern Ireland, but I take the point that we want to give
pharmacists and pharmacy technicians throughout our islands the
opportunity offered by the order within the scope and range of services
that they can
provide.
That brings
me to the point about PCTs not using the range of services. In my area
of work as the Minister with responsibility for public health, as well
as in the various ministerial posts that I have had the privilege to
hold, I have been reassured by and had my eyes opened to the sort of
services that pharmacists can provide, whether they be national chains
or community based. Such services include drug treatment and, as I said
earlier, chlamydia testing, which is offered through a well-known chain
of pharmacies. Good relationships are emerging between GP practices and
their local pharmacies, particularly smaller pharmacies, to provide the
extra care that we think is valuable. That is particularly important
for those individuals who might more frequently pop into their pharmacy
than go to see their GP.
The emphasis is very much on
the health family and what we hope to achieve, although I am afraid to
say that these things always take longer than we might want. By
regulating as we are doing, we can give a greater sense of assurance
about the reasons why people should support the partnership with that
sector of the health family, rather than the reasons why
not.
Sandra
Gidley:
I welcome the Ministers positive words,
but the commissioning of services from pharmacies is at a disappointing
level, particularly compared with what was available before the new
contract. Will she use her best efforts to ensure that there is an
opportunity to include pharmacies in practice-based commissioning, and
to allow them to tender for and be considered for services? The
relationship with the GP is often there; it is often the PCTs that do
not appreciate the benefits of the
pharmacy.
Caroline
Flint:
I will certainly take back the points that have
been raised today and raise them with my noble Friend Lord Hunt of
Kings Heath, who is responsible for the issue. I have heard and noted
what hon. Members have said and will take that back to the Department,
because we are looking at strengthening commissioning. Our work on the
sort of care that can happen outside the more traditional settings is
about 21st-century health care, which includes both prevention and
treatment. As Minister with responsibility for public health, I think
that we should all welcome the opportunities for prevention that the
involvement of pharmacies provide, but I will follow the point up.
Clearly, we cannot dictate to PCTs
what they should and should not do. We have to make the arguments and
make it more difficult for people to say why they should not, rather
than, We should.
Mr.
O'Brien:
While the Minister is thinking about taking
messages back, and about taking an example of what has been raised and
stretching it beyond, strictly speaking, the public health field, I
hope that she will take back the message that there has been serious
concern about the absence of support for pharmacies in the change to
the supply of domiciliary oxygen. That is serious and controversial
issue. Pharmacists used to be brilliant at supplying the domiciliary
oxygen within their communities, but the contracts have been changed
and the service has often fallen apart. It has been the local
pharmacists, not least Ian Littler in Tarvin in my constituency, who
have come to the rescue and provided an excellent service. That message
ought to be taken back to ensure that that contract does not undermine
the great link between pharmacists and those who need oxygen in their
homes.
Caroline
Flint:
That is noted. There were some changes in the
provision of that service and some issues that had to be sorted out. As
far as I am aware, on the whole it is working well. Services that have
traditionally been provided by one part of the health family sometimes
change over time. However, it is clear from our discussion that,
although there have been changes to some of the traditional services
that pharmacists have provided, there are plenty of opportunities to
make other services, to which they have not been able to contribute,
part of their future agenda. That is what the order and other work in
the Department of Health are all
about.
Moving on to
the issues raised by the hon. Members for Eddisbury and for Romsey, a
point was made about allegations and the notice that needs to be given.
I would like to reassure the Committee that the registrar will weed out
cases before they are referred to the investigating committee. Only on
referral will disclosure be made. That is important because in any walk
of life allegations can be made that, after some examination, do not
stand up as what would rightly be considered cases for referral and
further investigation. The society will make rules on which cases will
be referred to the investigating committee. Given that that check is in
the system, it can only be right that at the point where a referral is
made, appropriate individuals, including the employer and so on, should
know that a case is to be investigated further. That sort of
transparency is only right.
Article 5
deals with the Privy Councils power to alter the size and
composition of the council. Lord McColl of Dulwich asked in the other
place if the Privy Council could vary the councils composition
without a request. I understand that the straightforward answer to that
is yes, it would be possible, but there are no plans to do so; it is
simply possible. The hon. Member for Eddisbury asked why that potential
is available. I understand that we have it purely because it is
consistent with what
other regulators do throughout the health care profession, and for no
other reason. I suppose that the short answer is that that is how it
works in other areas. It is a matter of having synergy between
regulations. However, the inference of the discussion in the other
place is that it is unlikely that the power would ever be used. I take
on board the point made by the hon. Member for Romsey about a potential
imbalance in the membership of the council, and will take it back to my
noble Friend.
Sandra
Gidley:
The Minister has pre-empted my point. She
mentioned consistency among health regulators, but does she accept that
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is different because of its dual role?
We cannot necessarily apply a one-size-fits-all
solution.
Caroline
Flint:
I have heard what the hon. Lady says about that. A
question was asked about the dual role of the society during the
consultation on preservation of the statutory link between registration
of pharmacists and membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain. There was much discussion of that in response to the
consultation on the order, and the majority favoured retention of the
link. The review of non-medical regulation recommended that the
functions of the RPSGB should be split to create a regulatory and a
professional body, but that issue will be addressed in the White Paper
and is, therefore, a matter for future discussion.
Going back to points made in
the debate, the work that has been undertaken by the Department and the
society has resulted in the good support that we have had for the
order. The societys involvement in defining the order has been
helpful. Clearly, we want to encourage self-regulation in the
profession, as it is extremely helpful. Of course, we need to get the
order right in terms of public protection as opposed to a
representative role, and that will be discussed further when the White
Paper is produced.
I
cannot say more about the White Paper, because we could end up having a
discussion about it, which would be inappropriate today. The reason for
introducing the order is that, regardless of the White Paper and the
two reviews and the discussions that they will create, the order-making
powers are required.
I
commend the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire for his patience
in respect of regulation in this area. Unfortunately, as he will know
only too well, progress in Government is sometimes much slower than we
might wish. It is important to get the foundation right, and the order,
on which I hope we all agree, will speed up the process in which
pharmacists and pharmacy technicians can play a fuller role with the
confidence of others who work in health care and certainly of the
general public, which is the paramount
priority.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy
Technicians Order 2007.
Committee rose at seven
minutes past Eleven
oclock.