The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7150 p749-752
June 2, 2001

  The Profession
  PSNC
  In-store pharmacies
  Packaging
  Medicines supply
  Depression
  Locum pharmacy
  The army
  Methadone dispensing

PSNC

Is there a conflict of interest?

From Mr N. J. M. Engineer, MRPharmS

On May 2, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee confirmed to me that the chairman designate’s honorarium is not in the public domain. It also confirmed the chief executive officer designate’s salary is a six-figure package and this is also not in the public domain. I find this appalling and unacceptable. These people are paid by pharmacy contractors and their salaries should be published. If this is not done immediately, most pharmacists will have to assume that there is a hidden agenda.

The PSNC stated in a press release on April 17 that Barry Andrews, the chairman designate, would resign from Alliance Unichem Plc and Moss Pharmacy at the end of May 2001. What it did not say was that Mr Andrews is going to be a non-executive director of Alliance Unichem Plc. This will create a conflict of interest. Mr Andrews should do the honourable thing and resign his post as chairman designate and if he does not then the PSNC should withdraw his appointment immediately.

It is also clear from the press release that a rigorous search process was conducted before the appointment of the new chief executive, using professional search consultants. I fail to understand why a similar process was not used to appoint a chairman. Can I conclude that the chairman’s post was reserved on the basis of “jobs for the boys”.

Mr Andrews understands how multiple pharmacies are run and I do not expect him to understand very well what problems independent pharmacy contractors face.

Secondly, and more importantly. Mr Andrews will receive a handsome pension from Alliance Unichem Plc, not forgetting his share options. How then can he represent the interests of independent pharmacy contractors?

I understand from the PSNC that its implementation group, headed by Roy Carrington (who runs National Co-operative Chemists Ltd), recommended the appointment of Mr Andrews to the PSNC board. It is beyond me how the independent pharmacist members of the implementation group can recommend somebody who will neither care about nor understand the running of independent pharmacies.

I would like to know why the appointments of Mr Andrews and Susan Sharpe (chief executive officer designate) were not announced at the local pharmaceutical committees’ conference on March 11.

Deceipt, subterfuge and obstruction now appear to be common tools. The common outrage of ordinary pharmacists must be expressed so that action is taken to establish structures along democratic lines. What is needed is transparency.

Navin Engineer
Weybridge, Surrey

• The PSNC decided not to publicise salary or honorarium details. Salary and honorarium details of PSNC officers and its chairman have never been published before, and the committee saw no reason to depart from established practice. There is no hidden agenda.
• The PSNC’s implementation team had full knowledge of Mr Andrews’s proposed non-executive role at Alliance Unichem during the selection process. Press releases from Moss and Alliance Unichem issued on the day his appointment as PSNC chairman was announced made direct reference to his non-executive position at Alliance Unichem, and this matter was widely reported. No attempt was made by anyone involved to hide the fact.
• Mr Andrews has been a member of the PSNC for nine years and is acutely aware of the committee’s remit to act in the interests of the general body of contractors, as are all PSNC members. He is equally aware of the remit under which he will be working when he takes the chair in July. It is a core part of that remit to act fairly and impartially.
• The PSNC is confident in Mr Andrews’s ability to carry out the function of non-executive chairman in the manner expected from him. The implementation team sought and received assurances that no conflict of interest would arise.
• Past chairmen of the PSNC have had their own commercial interests, and indeed have tended to have an executive role in pharmacy businesses rather than a non-executive one. Any risk of conflict has been successfully avoided in the past and the PSNC’s expectation is that it will be in the future.
• As your correspondent acknowledges, the PSNC’s implementation team included members from both multiple and independent pharmacy. It was a reflection of the PSNC itself, which represents all parts of community pharmacy. No one section within pharmacy dominated the process.
• The appointment of Mr Andrews and Mrs Sharpe was not announced at the LPC conference in March because various matters had not been finalised by that point. As soon as matters were finalised, the appointments were announced without any delay.
• The PSNC is controlled by its 25 members. Jointly, they determine policy and approve the implementation of policy decisions.

Previous Topic (The Profession)
Next Topic (In-store pharmacies)
Send your letter to The Editor