From Mr B. G. Simner, MRPharmS
SIR,—It was with great concern that I read the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has outlined measures to save costs because its income next year "will not meet the aspirations of the Council and the membership" (PJ, November 18, p749).
These measures will include: postponing elements of staff and Council training, introducing a travel and fares policy for Council members and staff, and economising on networking activity.
Given the importance the proposals included in "Pharmacy in the future", and the challenges this document raises for pharmacists, it is particularly regrettable that the Society feels it must cut back at this time.
I therefore find it incredible one of the reasons cited for this lack of funds is that the Society has spent considerable sums from its reserves to support the pro resale price maintenance lobby.
I have never hidden my opposition to price fixing measures; nevertheless, I recognise the validity of the Community Pharmacy Action Group and the needs of those pharmacists who feel removing these barriers will negatively affect them. However, I really must question the validity of the Society's stance on this issue and, in particular, its use of our funds.
It must be remembered that about half of the Society's membership is made up of employee pharmacists, such as myself, for whom the outcome of the case will have little effect.
In these pages, fellow pharmacists consistently express the view that the profession is at a turning point. This is the very time we need representation and constructive action from our professional body.
Yet, we find the Society having to scale back its activities as the result of an ill-conceived campaign against a measure that has little resonance for a large proportion of its members and will in any case be overturned by 2005.
Barry Simner Vice President, Superdrug.com