The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7210 p198-199
10 August 2002

Society summary

Majority accept need to increase lay membership on Society’s Council

An analysis of the response to the first discussion paper issued by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s modernisation steering group shows that most respondents accept the need to increase the Council’s lay membership. They also support a future Council of 20 to 30 members, favour the inclusion of technicians on the Council (provided that registration of technicians by the Society proceeds) and want government chief pharmacists to be invited to contribute to Council debate meetings but not to vote.

The steering group received a total of 208 responses, one of which was the feedback from the 1,760 completed questionnaires received by The Journal and analysed in last week’s PJ (p175). Most of the 207 direct responses were from individual pharmacists; others were from groups within the Society, other bodies within pharmacy and a number of bodies outside pharmacy.

Individual pharmacists
The analysis document says that 172 direct responses were received from individual pharmacists. Their feedback was significantly different from the picture given by the response to the PJ questionnaire.

The direct responses from pharmacists were strongly influenced by the Young Pharmacists Group paper (PJ, 29 June, p906), which proposed that the Council should delegate its regulatory responsibilities to a new committee and retain its current composition, while remaining the governing body of the Society. Three-quarters of these respondents said that they supported the principles of the YPG’s proposals and a further 12 per cent expressed support but added additional comments.

The document says that the YPG model is not a realistic option because the Government has clearly indicated that the Society will need to increase the lay membership on the Council. However, the YPG has helped to identify concerns that need to be addressed, including how the professional expertise and advice needed to inform the new Council’s decisions should be fed into it, and how the Society can best engage pharmacists and others in its future work.

The broad outline of Council responsibilities set out in the discussion paper met the approval of 5 per cent of individual pharmacists who responded directly. Almost all of the remaining 95 per cent thought that the Council should delegate authority for all regulatory functions, as proposed by the YPG. Similarly, 94 per cent thought that the Council should not change its composition to fulfil the requirements for a modern regulatory body. This was significantly different from the response to the PJ survey, in which 60 per cent of respondents thought that the current Council structure was not sustainable for a modern regulator and professional body and 77.5 per cent agreed that the Council should change its composition to fulfil the requirements for a modern regulatory body. 21.5 per cent disagreed. However, the 77.5 per cent who agreed with this proposition included pharmacists who thought that the Council structure itself should be changed and others who thought that the Council should delegate its regulatory responsibilities. A clearer indication may be gained from the fact that 53 per cent of respondents accepted that changing the Council’s composition would mean an increase in the lay membership of the Council.

All pharmacists who responded directly favoured a Council of 20–30 members, compared with 61 per cent in the PJ survey. Ninety per cent thought that pharmacists should make up more than 80 per cent of the Council. Of the other 10 per cent, most favoured a pharmacist majority of 51–60 per cent and a few a majority of 60–80 per cent. This compares with the PJ survey finding of 43 per cent favouring a pharmacist majority of 52–60 per cent, 9 per cent favouring 70–75 per cent, 12.5 per cent favouring 80–85 per cent and 31 per cent favouring 90–100 per cent.

Just over two-thirds of pharmacists who responded directly thought that the Council’s future constitution should allow for the inclusion of technicians. This compares with 55 per cent in the PJ survey.

Fifty per cent of those responding directly thought that government chief pharmacists should be invited to attend Council meetings and contribute to debate without voting rights, while 30 per cent thought they should be invited as observers only and 20 per cent believed they should not attend. The equivalent figures in the PJ survey were 57 per cent, 19 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively, with 12.5 per cent saying that they should be full voting members of Council.

Society groups
Eight responses were received from groups within the Society, such as branch committees. Four of these groups thought that the Council should delegate responsibility for regulatory functions and that it therefore did not need to change its composition. Three others were content with the broad outline of the Council’s responsibilities set out in the paper. They noted that the Council should retain the ability to be proactive and to take the profession forward. These groups also recognised the need for the Council to change its composition if it was to retain its professional and regulatory responsibilities.

Suggestions for the size of the Council ranged from less than 20 up to 35 members, with most favouring 24 to 28 members.

Three groups thought that pharmacists should comprise over 80 per cent of the Council, with authority for all regulatory functions devolved. Three others thought that the proportion of pharmacists should be close to, and perhaps not less than, 60 per cent. One group did not favour changes to the Council’s composition but said that, should change be necessary, the proportion of pharmacists should be around 60 per cent.

All the Society groups believed that, if pharmacy technicians were to be registered by the Society, they should be represented on the Council. Again, concerns were voiced that this should not prevent the Council from having a sufficient number of pharmacists.

Four groups thought that government chief pharmacists should contribute to debate at Council meetings but without a vote; two thought that they should be invited to attend when appropriate but not as of right.

Other bodies within pharmacy
Sixteen responses came from other bodies or groups within pharmacy. They included the Company Chemists Association, the College of Pharmacy Practice, the National Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the YPG.

Sixty per cent of these respondents were broadly content with the proposed Council responsibilities and the need for the Council to change its composition. The remainder thought that the Council should delegate authority for all regulatory functions or separate them in some other way.

Suggestions for the size of the Council varied from less than 20 up to 30 members, with 24 to 30 being the most popular range.
Most respondents (54 per cent) favoured a pharmacist majority on the Council of 55– 65 per cent, with 7.5 per cent wanting 60–70 per cent and 7.5 per cent favouring a 50:50 split of professional and lay members. The remaining 31 per cent thought that the Council should not have responsibility for regulatory functions and should retain a pharmacist majority of over 80 per cent. Again, concerns were expressed that the number of pharmacists on the Council should be sufficient to allow it to carry out its roles and that good advisory structures should feed in to the Council.

Seventy-three per cent were in favour of including technicians within the Council, but there were mixed views on whether technicians should form part of the professional or the lay membership. Of the 27 per cent who disagreed, their view in some cases stemmed from a wish to see the Society become purely a representative body for pharmacists.

In this group, 58 per cent of respondents thought that government chief pharmacists should be able to debate at Council meetings but should not vote. It was suggested that this would help to build relationships and influence government thinking. A further 25 per cent thought that attendance and contribution should be only for specific items and not as of right, so that the Council would retain the ability to discuss issues without a government presence. The remaining 17 per cent thought the chief pharmacists should be invited only as observers.

Bodies outside pharmacy
Responses were received from 11 bodies outside pharmacy. They included patient and consumer organisations and other regulatory or professional bodies.

All respondents in this group were broadly content with the proposed responsibilities of the Council and agreed that the Council should change its composition to fulfil the requirements for a modern regulatory body and to retain its strategic, policy-making and co-ordinating roles across the Society’s professional and regulatory functions. The importance of public protection and the need to avoid conflicts with the public interest were emphasised.

One voluntary sector body commented that establishing a second board could lead to confusion in determining where overall responsibility for the Society lies and reduce the council’s credibility as governing body.

All respondents favoured a Council of 20–30 members, to reflect a balance between a group small enough to carry out its responsibilities and work collectively, and a number large enough to include necessary skills, experience and viewpoints.

Suggestions for the proportion of pharmacists on the Council ranged from 50 to 59 per cent. Overall, there was support for a pharmacist majority, in keeping with the principle of self-regulation and the need for a regulatory body to retain the confidence of the profession. There were mixed views on whether the Society’s broader range of functions could justify the Council having a professional majority of more than one.

Few respondents in this group gave a view on the potential inclusion of pharmacy technicians within the Council, but those who did were in favour. One stated that technicians should be included in their own right; another said that they should be within the Council’s professional membership.

Eighty per cent believed that government chief pharmacists should be invited to attend Council meetings to advise but not to vote and the remainder thought they should be invited as observers. The importance of the Society being seen to be independent of government was noted.

• Copies of the report can be downloaded in PDF format from the “About the Society” section of the Society’s website (www.rpsgb. org.uk/society).