From Dr C. F. Green, MRPharmS
SIR,—Predictably, the interim report on this year’s branch representatives
meeting (PJ, October 28, p646)
contains the usual great sounding but somewhat vague responses to motions. Of
particular interest to me was the motion concerning the fees for preregistration
students. The response? “The Council has deferred considering a proposal
for new fee structures . . . in view of current budgetary constraints.”
Presumably, this means that spending half a million pounds on the new presidential
palace has left us a bit strapped for cash.
Call me a cynic, but I imagine that the motion will be deferred until everyone
forgets about it, or, until yet another motion is put forward at the BRM. I
say this because, readers may be interested to know, in 1998, a similar motion
was tabled by the British Pharmaceutical Students Association suggesting that,
like nurses, doctors and dentists, newly qualified pharmacists should be offered
low initial registration fees, retention fees or a pro rata fee. Since I was
at the meeting, I can tell readers that the motion was overwhelmingly carried.
What has the Council done about this? Some two years later, a similar motion
appeared on the BRM agenda. Surely the reappearance of this issue will stimulate
the Council to leap into action and do something about this. Not quite.
To quote the presenter of the BPSA motion, “I’ve paid my debt to [the]
Society”, but I feel we are doing a great injustice to the newly qualified
members of our profession. My question to the Council is simple. Do we continue
to fleece newly qualified pharmacists or not? It is not a difficult question,
so, to coin a phrase, “Over to you”.
As an aside, given the stress of the registration examination, I doubt that
many newly qualified pharmacists could care less about how their certificates
are signed as long as they get them.
Christopher Green
Liverpool