The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7185 p224-225
16 February 2002

February Council meeting

Need for clear understanding of Society's modernisation programme

The need to ensure that pharmacists have a clear awareness and understanding of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's modernisation programme at all stages was expressed by Council members at their meeting on 5 and 6 February.

Giving an update on the modernisation programme, the PRESIDENT said that the steering group for the programme had held its first meeting in January. The group's members came from a range of backgrounds and the purpose of the meeting was to bring everyone up to speed with the group's remit, the history of the Society, the external policy context of the programme and the steps taken by other bodies which regulated health professionals.

Since then the Department of Health's response to the report of the inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary (the Kennedy report) had reinforced many of the policy drivers identified at that meeting. Papers setting out the background to and the context of the modernisation programme had been sent to all Council members and also members of the Scottish and Welsh Executives. Articles based on those papers had appeared in The Pharmaceutical Journal (PJ, 19 January, p74, 26 January, p117, and 2 February, p154).

Those were the first steps in a communication programme that was already building momentum and would run alongside the steering group's work. It was important to build an understanding and awareness of the issues and allow interested parties to express their views. Christine Glover, a member of the steering group, would help to achieve that. The officers also proposed that Sultan Dajani and Linda Stone should contribute to the work on communications. Other Council members not on the steering group would continue to be involved in other aspects of the programme. Both Philip Green (director of professional development) and the President would attend branch or regional meetings later in the month to talk about the modernisation programme. A speaker pack was being made available through the membership unit to assist Council members who spoke on the topic.

Communications was only one strand of the work needed to support the modernisation programme. The President hoped that Council members would be willing to contribute to other strands as they arose. However, the pace of change and the resources available would not allow the Society to set up working groups to progress each strand. Instead, Council members would be asked to be available to engage with stakeholders or perhaps to contribute to virtual or one-off meetings on various aspects of the modernisation programme. They needed to work quickly and flexibly.

ANDREW BURR asked what feedback had been received since the announcement of the steering group's membership (PJ, 5/12 January, p37). He meant no disrespect but a number of people had commented to him that they felt the group could have reflected a bit more modernisation.

The PRESIDENT replied that he personally had not received any feedback, but he had read some comments in the press. At the October 2001 Council meeting members had been invited to put their names forward for the steering group but many had not done so. It was hoped that those who had put their names forward but had not been selected would be used in other ways in taking the agenda forward. If there was a common belief that many names had been put forward, that was not the case.

Mr BURR said he would describe the Society's membership as indifferent towards the Council. Having talked to members up and down Britain, he was concerned to note a disillusionment that he had not experienced in a long time. There had been an expectation that the steering group would lead the way with far-reaching ideas, but the response he had received from a number of members, having looked at the group, was that their expectations had changed quite dramatically.

The PRESIDENT said that Mr Burr's comments highlighted the need to ensure that the activities, aims and objectives and the way the modernisation group was managing its affairs, were explicitly made clear to all members and other interested parties.

ASHWIN TANNA said that much concern had been expressed in the pharmaceutical press in relation to the Society's status as a membership organisation. A document circulated by the Society had suggested that it was not a membership organisation in the same way as the British Medical Association or the Royal Horticultural Society. At the British Pharmaceutical Conference the President had stated that the Society's overriding duty had to be to the public interest, and the President had also referred to the Society's Charter obligations, seeming to imply that they were no longer of prime importance.

Mr Tanna said the Charter could not be ignored. Was the Council telling the membership that the Society was a membership organisation or not? A letter in The Journal of 5/12 January said categorically that if history no longer mattered and the Society was now not to be regarded as a membership organisation, why should all registered pharmaceutical chemists be compelled to be members? That was a key question. If the Society was not a membership organisation, the Council should say so. If it was, then the Council should be honest with the membership and move forward on the modernisation programme.

The PRESIDENT said that in an article in The Journal the previous week he had specifically referred to what membership meant as he perceived it (PJ, 2 February, p153). He did not wish to get into a personal debate on that, but there was no suggestion that the Society was not a membership organisation. Of course it was.

The President urged all Council members who had anxieties to read the relevant documents, which highlighted why the modernisation programme perhaps was being misunderstood to some degree. Some people were making assumptions but with greater knowledge they would have clearer minds. He appreciated that the matter required careful reading; but those interested should read the documents coming out from the modernisation group. They explained the position as they related to individual items.

Mr TANNA suggested that the Council should explain to the membership in simple terms what benefit the modernisation programme would achieve. Members did not have enough time and resources to cope with complicated reports, consultation papers and indigestible statutory instruments.

LINDA STONE said that Mr Tanna had raised a real problem. Pharmacists were registrants of the Society as well as members, but the Council had only ever used the term "member". The Council had to get across that if the Society did not modernise then it might well no longer continue to exist. It had to move in an appropriate way that, it was hoped, would preserve the dual role. That was in the interests of the profession and its members and registrants. Mr Tanna was right: they had to get that message across simply and in a way that was understood. It was an alien concept; it was one that members had not had to grasp before.

HASSAN ARGOMANDKHAH asked for an assurance that the modernisation process would be kept transparent so that at every stage everybody knew what was going on and no one could claim that they did not know what was happening. Clarity and transparency were important to the new governance procedures.

PETER CURPHEY said that he was still trying to understand why Mr Tanna felt that members might not understand the situation. Part of the problem was that Council members spent a whole day discussing what was going to happen and started to get an understanding of that. They used language in a way that the members did not. Whatever communication process was put in place, it should not be assumed that people started with the knowledge that senior members of staff and the Council members had. That matter should have been thought through.

The Society used language badly. He had pleaded in the past for a communication strategy and Beverley Parkin was working hard to improve the situation. However, the Society was still not getting the language right in the main organ that was read, which was The Journal. The Society produced ponderous articles about complex subjects, but they needed to be much simpler.

SULTAN DAJANI felt it was important from what had been said that there needed to be more membership involvement from the grassroots rather than just by way of consultation processes. A clear distinction had to be made between those who needed to register with the Society and those who registered by choice. It would help the communication strategy and the modernisation process if the modernisation group included both.

Dr JOHN EVANS reminded the Council that the Government would act whether or not the Society did. It was helpful to put constructive thoughts to the Government that might influence its actions. But there was no doubt that the Government would act; it had already announced an overarching body to look at all the regulatory bodies.

Secondly, it used to be assumed that a membership organisation in the sense that Mr Tanna had been talking about could look after the public interest. But that was no longer assumed. The Government, and many in the media, were questioning whether a membership organisation could now be trusted to oversee the education, registration, discipline and the continued capability in practice of professional people.

KIRIT PATEL, supporting Mr Tanna, said that the Council should not focus on Westminster and the public interest at the cost of motivating the membership. Under the pressure of mandatory changes the Council had to be careful to take account of how the day-to-day running of pharmacies or working practices was affected. They had to learn to live with the Society's two roles.

HEMANT PATEL said that Dr Evans's contribution was important. Council members were exercising social responsibility by taking part in the modernisation process because they wanted to see a modern, independent profession. They had to convince people that they could put their house in order and keep on delivering high quality services and be capable of regulating their own members. It was desirable to continue the dual role. But the point about the dual role would need to be discussed and debated by the membership, and it was hoped to come to an agreement acceptable to the vast majority.

The PRESIDENT felt that the debate had been useful. As Dr Evans had said, in some respects the Society had no choice. The Government had a policy. It had regulations in place. A Bill was passing through the house which would emerge onto the statute book in the near future. The Society's dual role was a strength for the profession and its members. There was a genuine misunderstanding in the minds of many members about what was actually meant by the word "member". Therein lay the root of many of the difficulties. But without any doubt, if Council members just sat on their hands then the Government would impose arrangements which it believed were appropriate. The Government had already done that with two health regulators in the public interest. Those health regulators had had no choice.

The Society had a fine track record of looking after the interests of both the public and its members. A clear objective was a recognition that members benefited from the integrated approach of managing the Society's affairs so as to maintain public confidence and at the same time develop the profession. But it would not be easy. There was genuine misunderstanding. They would have to be clear and explicit in precisely what they meant and the way that they were going. That was the intention and all members of Council had a role to play. They would return to the debate before long and take matters forward.