The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7205 p4
6 July 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

News summary

Related websites
National Pharmaceutical Association (www.npa.co.uk)

NPA says Society reform plans were on target two years ago

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society should go back to reform proposals produced by its Health Act Working Party two years ago and submit these, or an amended form of them, as its plan for regulatory reform for the profession.

That is the view of the National Pharmaceutical Association's management board, formulated at its June meeting.

Considering the Society's consultation paper "What will the Council look like in the future: (1) responsibilities and composition" the NPA board was unable to see how the proposed model of a small professional majority would achieve the aim of retaining both professional and regulatory functions with an appropriate balance between the two roles.

A modern regulatory function will require a significant lay presence on the Council and a narrow professional majority, while a professional body will need a larger professional majority, the NPA says.

The NPA board's view is that the model proposed by the Society is exclusively based on a regulatory function and that this is evidenced by the fact that throughout the document the Society relies upon existing regulatory bodies including the General Medical Council, General Dental Council and General Optical Council, as comparators.

Two years ago, the Society's Health Act Working Group put forward proposals to leave the Council unchanged and create a number of committees with delegated authority to focus upon aspects of professional regulation (PJ, 22 April 2000, p616). The board says that these have been rejected because a Council whose structure does not fulfil the requirements of a modern regulator will not retain its regulatory powers, but that this conclusion has been reached without exploring alternative models.

"In deciding to retain a regulatory and professional body function 'under one roof', the Society wants to make the most of the unique position it holds as both a professional body and a regulator," the NPA says. "In doing this, it is by definition setting itself apart from other regulatory bodies and it must surely follow that a different constitutional model will be needed if it is to adequately perform both functions."

If the model proposed in the paper is adopted, the NPA believes that the Society should make it clear that in re-configuring the Council composition to fall into line with other regulatory bodies, the Society is making itself just that, a regulatory body.