The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7200 p781-786
1 June 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Branch Representatives' meeting summary

Could regulatory role be delegated to subsidiary body?

The idea that a modernised Royal Pharmaceutical Society should retain a Council much as at present and delegate its new regulatory functions to a subsidiary body with strong lay representation was among suggestions made during a discussion forum at the branch representatives' meeting on 16 May.

NICK WOOD (Chelmsford) said that the strength of feeling among the membership was clear from the debate on the branch motions. There was great fondness for the Society as a membership body. As the Society changed to meet the requirements as a health regulator, was there any possibility of a regulatory council within the Society that could fulfil the main regulatory functions and have a large proportion of lay membership while the Society still kept in some way an independent Council to which the members could elect their pharmacist representatives? The Statutory Committee currently operated in a way that was more or less independent of the Council. Could the way forward be a regulatory council under the overall ambit of the Council as formed at present?

The PRESIDENT (Marshall Davies) said that the modernisation group was to consider the future format of the Council soon, with a consultation document highlighting some options.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR (Ann Lewis) said that the Society was in many ways ahead of some other bodies that had to reform. For example, one issue for the other regulators was setting up appropriate appeals mechanisms, but the Society already had appeals from the Statutory Committee to the High Court. So, in a way, the Society provided a model for the future.

She added that, now that the Council had chosen to retain a professional role along with the regulatory role, the Society had an opportunity to look at how that should be done. One idea yet to be explored was the possibility of an elected forum to look after professional issues. The Society would look at a range of ideas and was keen to hear the views of the members.

It also had to take into account how to ensure that Scotland and Wales were included. At the moment there was no representation on the Council from Wales.

To highlight the complexity of the issue, the PRESIDENT said that regulation was a reserve power for Westminster and covered the whole United Kingdom but professional issues were devolved. Regulatory issues had to be related to the professional operation and implementation, which increasingly differed in England, Wales and Scotland.

ANTHONY COX (Birmingham) asked whether the Society had had any clear indications from the Government about how much it had to change. There was a danger of overdoing or underdoing it. Perhaps it was possible to restrict the lay members to the regulatory side of the Society, maintaining the Council for the membership.

The PRESIDENT said that there had been no specific definition. Essentially, it was a balance between what pharmacists could and should provide in the public interest.

MARK KOZIOL (Birmingham) said that more needed to be done to instill trust in the membership in what was going on. He knew that things were moving at an alarming rate and that the Government, rather than the Society, was in control. He was not sure whether the membership had been adequately involved in the debate and hoped that when the Council started looking at the minutiae it would think carefully about involving the membership more and creating more trust.

Mr Koziol went on to say that pharmacy was being handed a tremendous opportunity. But many of the issues concerned with the representative and regulatory roles had become complex and in some instances it had almost paralysed the Society into inactivity. He was therefore enormously attracted by Nick Wood's proposal for a regulatory Council under the overarching body of the Society, with a Council on top that still contains elected representatives who were pharmacists. That would give an opportunity once and for all for the upper Council, with its elected pharmacist representatives, to get on with the job of moving the profession forward and not necessarily be bogged down with regulatory matters, important though they were. This would give the profession a regulatory body that met the Government's requirements and also a Council of leaders elected by pharmacists. He was sure he was not alone in wanting the profession to be led by elected pharmacist representatives.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that that proposal could certainly be taken forward. But careful thought had to be given to where the ultimate responsibility would lie for decisions on the standards for conduct, for education and training. It had to lie, she thought, with the ultimate Council. There would still be professionals on that even if it was a mix of lay and professional.

Whichever way things went, there would certainly be elected members on the Council itself. But pharmacists could be recruited to the Council partly by election and partly by appointment to secure diversity across the profession, in terms of both geographical requirements and areas of practice.

The PRESIDENT said that no one underestimated the difficulties and challenges. The Society had a clear view of where it wanted to go, but the detail of how to get there would perhaps be more complex than one would wish. There was a need to involve, to educate, to inform, to consult, and to get the views and comments of the profession.

The President added that, in his experience of the existing Council, once the lay members understood what the professional body was about, they became more passionate in promoting pharmacy than many members of the profession themselves. So pharmacists should not necessarily be fazed by the arrival of lay representation. The right sort of people would be a great asset and they would give the Society more credibility and authority in pursuing and developing its roles in the public domain.

Answering a question about where the extra lay Council members would come from, the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that on other bodies they were public appointments. They represented patient interests in particular and also other professions. They were not appointed as thanks for political services. In some cases appointment followed an advertisement setting out required criteria for appointment. In fact, when the current Statutory Committee Chairman was appointed, that appointment was advertised and dealt with through an appointments process.

She was sure that the Society would prefer an open appointment system with criteria set and a desired profile for lay members. As well as patient-oriented lay members, the Society might need an educationalist, because it had a lot to do with education.

In reply to a question about training for lay members, the PRESIDENT said that there was already an induction programme for the Council's current lay representatives.

Answering a question from STEVEN CURTIS (Harrow and Hillingdon), the PRESIDENT said that as a modern regulator the Society could not have a trade union function because there would be a clear conflict of interest. But promoting the role of the profession on the basis of the benefit to the public was perfectly acceptable.

In reply to a question from PHILIP WALTON (Manchester, Salford and Trafford), the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that although the Society could not represent individual pharmacists there was concern at the increasing number of locum pharmacists and others without access to individual representation. It was an issue for the profession as a whole how that representation should go.

CHRISTINA LOWE (Morgannwg) said that she hoped that the future structure would ensure that the Society took into consideration the public and professional interest when it conflicted with current government agendas, not just when it concorded with government agendas.

Drawing the discussion to a conclusion, the PRESIDENT said that anyone with further questions or comments should address them to the project manager for the modernisation project, Christine Gray (e-mail cgray@rpsgb.org.uk).