The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7206 p42
13 July 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Tension that must be resolved

The word on the street is that the Government would not accept models (PDF 50K) like that suggested by the Young Pharmacists Group (PJ, 29 June, p906) for the future structure of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The Journal has learnt that the Government will insist that any governing council responsible for the regulation of a health profession must be transparently responsible for setting and maintaining standards. The responsibilities encompass establishing standards for training, establishing standards for practice and conduct, keeping a register of those who meet those standards and having a mechanism for dealing with those who do not. Unfortunately, Ministers are unlikely to accept the YPG model because — with a predominantly pharmacist-led Council and regulation devolved to the suggested Pharmacy Regulation and Compliance Committee — it would not be clear to the Government or the public which of the two would be ultimately accountable for these activities.

There is also an expectation from the Department of Health that overhauling the regulatory processes of the health professions will leave them all in a similar shape with significant lay input on their governing councils. An examination of the way the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society work would reassure anyone that members of any of those professions would be treated in a similar way. The overarching Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals will ensure that they conform.

The Society, it can be argued, is a victim of its own success. The fact that it is already both a regulator and a professional body gives it a head start in meeting the Government's demands. The other bodies have a long way to travel in order to meet the professional standards element of their new remit and, en route, we may expect to hear cries of "poaching" from the British Medical Association and Royal College of Nursing.

Members of the Society have two options: to see that the Council adopts a model where pharmacists dominate the governing Council (but risk the consequences of Government rejection), or to support the general direction being taken by the Modernisation Steering Group, whose members, presumably, have a pretty clear idea of what the Government wants (see President's statement p79). The Government, and its officials, cannot be seen to be actively interfering at this stage of the process although they are clearly prepared to give some guidance.

One correspondent this week (p55) argues: "Any insistence by the Government that fundamental changes to our present systems should be made, should only be done on the basis of gaining compromises that enhance the Society's status and that ensure that regulatory functions should not be subservient to its professional responsibilities."

Surely, the vast majority of members must be able to support that correspondent's view even though some of them will find the Government's agenda unpalatable. How this tension is resolved in the coming months will be critical for the future identity of the Society.

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.