Your views sought on eligibility to serve on — and remain on —
the Council
This article (PDF
151K)
A discussion paper issued by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
this week asks for views on how the elected membership of the Society’s
Council should be controlled. It seeks opinions on restricting eligibility
for election, on limiting length of service and on removing Council members
for poor attendance, conduct or performance. It also asks for views on
canvassing, the frequency of elections and the length of the term of office.
Published as a four-page centre pull-out section with this issue of The
Journal (facing p200, the paper is the third in a series prepared by the
Society’s Modernisation Steering Group to promote discussion and
comment from those with an interest in the Society’s governance.
Their publication follows a Council decision that the Society should retain
both its regulatory and professional roles within a reformed structure
based on public interest (PJ, May 25, p739).
The first paper (PJ, 15 June, p855), sought views on the Council’s
future responsibilities and composition, including the proportions of
professional and lay members. The second (PJ, 22 June, p883) looked at
whether the Council’s make-up should reflect devolution and/or fields
of practice and whether at least some pharmacist members of the Council
should be appointed. It also considered the election voting system.
Comments on the third paper are sought by 13 September. The Journal is
to distribute a questionnaire with the 24 August issue to obtain a snapshot
response to the questions raised in the paper.
The new paper compares the Society’s current position with the existing
or proposed electoral schemes of the bodies regulating other health professions:
the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), General Dental Council (GDC),
General Medical Council (GMC), General Optical Council (GOC), General
Osteopathic Council (GOsC), Health Professions Council (HPC) and Nursing
and Midwifery Council (NMC). While acknowledging that the Society is not
directly equivalent to any of those bodies, it points out that the gap
between the Society’s remit and those of the other bodies will diminish
as they expand their activities to meet the broadening concept of modern
regulation. In addition, it says, the Council for the Regulation of Health
Care Professionals will want consistency between the bodies regulating
health professionals.
In a section on eligibility for election to the Council, the paper asks
whether the existing criteria should change. Currently, the only restrictions
on eligibility are that a candidate must be “normally resident”
in Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands and must be nominated
by 10 pharmacists, five of them from his own branch.
On residency, the paper suggests that a simpler criterion than “normally
resident” might be to restrict eligibility on the basis of registered
address. The GCC and GMC require a registered address in the United Kingdom,
while the HPC and NMC require candidates to live or work mainly in the
UK.
On the requirement for five nominators to be from the candidate’s
branch, the paper says that although this could be argued to demonstrate
that the candidate has some local standing, it could disadvantage candidates
from specialist areas of practice or those with national rather than local
reputations. Apart from a GCC stipulation that candidates require five
nominators within their home country, the paper gives no examples of similar
requirements in other professions.
The paper also asks for views on whether possible conflicts of interest
should require a restriction on eligibility for pharmacists who serve
on other pharmacy bodies. It notes that other health care regulators generally
do not have such a restriction.
The paper asks whether candidates should have to declare any adverse
decisions on their fitness to practise, pointing out that the profession’s
reputation might be damaged if such information became known only after
someone had taken up their Council seat. Five of the other regulatory
bodies require disclosure of such information.
The paper goes on to ask whether candidates should have to be actively
working in pharmacy. The HPC and NMC both require that candidates “continue
to practise, teach, manage or research within their profession”.
The paper asks whether candidates should have to declare their eligibility
to serve as charity trustees, since Council members are trustees of charitable
funds such as the Benevolent Fund. Because it is a criminal offence to
serve as a trustee when disqualified from doing so under the terms of
the Charities Act 1993, the paper suggests that such a requirement would
be sensible.
In a section on canvassing, the paper asks for views on whether the current
restrictions should change. It gives no information about the situation
in other health case professions.
The paper goes on to ask for views on the term of office of Council members.
It suggests that the current three-year term might be considered too short
in view of the need to gain experience before a member can exert influence.
Other health care regulators have, or will have, terms of four or five
years, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommends a four-year
limit.
On the frequency of elections, it says that electing only one-third of
the Council each year provides continuity but also limits the impact of
the election. Other regulatory bodies vary in the frequency of their elections.
The paper then asks for views on limiting the number of consecutive terms
of office a Council member may serve. It says that the Committee on Standards
in Public Life recommends a normal limit of two terms of office. Among
other health care regulatory bodies, the GMC will have a limit of two
four-year terms and the HPC and NMC will have a limit of three three-year
terms. The other regulators will have no limit.
Another question raised is whether there should be an age limit for Council
members. Of the other six regulatory bodies, three have opted for no limit,
two for a 70-year limit and one for a limit of 65 years for serving members
and 60 years for candidates.
Finally, the paper asks about changing the ways in which Council members
may be removed from office. It suggests that the Council needs a mechanism
to remove members who hinder it in carrying out its responsibilities.
Three of the other regulators have legislative mechanisms allowing the
removal of a council member in circumstances such as repeated absence
from meetings, unacceptable professional conduct or bringing the council
into disrepute. And three would be able to remove or suspend council members
because of fitness-to-practise decisions.
• The discussion paper can also be downloaded in PDF format from
the “About the Society” section of the Society’s website
(www.rpsgb.org.uk/society).
|
