The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7218 p483-484
5 October 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 60K

  Controlled drugs
  CPD
  BPC
  Cave drawings
  The Council
  Workforce census

Letters to the Editor

The Council

How many pharmacists on GMC and GDC?

From Mr T. N. R. Horsfield, MRPharmS

I read with interest the various articles in The Pharmaceutical Journal of the 28 September. In particular, I noted the editor's enthusiasm for having a "leading member of the Royal College of Physicians" on our Council.

In the report of the September Council meeting (p464), Christine Gray compared the actions of the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council with those intended for the new Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council. This appeared to put the status of all three Councils at the same level. This leads me to wonder how many pharmacists are serving on the medical and dental councils.

T. N. R. Horsfield
Sandbach, Cheshire

Changes that do not reflect members' wishes

From Mr J. Ferguson, FRPharmS

The Council has decided by "an overwhelming majority" (although no voting figures were given) to propose changes to its constitution (PJ, 28 September, p426). Its reason for the proposed fundamental change is said to be to meet the requirements of a "modern regulator" as set out by Kennedy in his report. The Council's proposals, if implemented, would not be confined to changes for the regulatory function of the Society. They would represent a profound alteration to the professional body itself.

The constitution of the Society's Council is established by Royal Charter, currently the Supplemental Charter of 1953 as amended in 1975 and 1988. This makes it clear that the Council comprises 21 elected members plus the three Privy Council nominees, currently appointed under the Pharmacy Act 1954. It is now proposed to change the Charter to replace this Council by one comprising up to 30 members, increasing lay membership to between 30 and 40 per cent, with two technician members if the Council decides that technicians are to be registered by the Society.

The Charter contains provisions designed to prevent a Council from making changes to the Charter that do not reflect the wishes of the members. It requires any proposed change to command a majority of three-quarters of Council members and confirmation by a majority of three-quarters of the members attending and voting at a Special General Meeting.

Until recently, this was the only means by which changes could be made to the Charter. But the Health Act 1999 includes a power for changes "modifying the regulation" of the profession to be made to the Charter by order in Council. The Council's proposals are not confined to "regulation". In my view the Council will be on very unstable ground if it seeks to make its proposed changes by using an order, ignoring the safeguards for the members included in the Charter itself.

There are alternative ways of meeting the requirements of Kennedy without altering, so radically, the composition of the profession's governing body. One possible alternative framework was put forward by the Young Pharmacists Group, supported by the National Pharmaceutical Association and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, and there are other possibilities. The Council appears to be refusing even to listen to any alternative to its own proposals, raising the spectre of the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. Two of the main functions of this council are "Comparing and reporting on a regulator's performance to promote continuous improvement" and "Promoting co-operation and sharing of good practice". The Society has no reason to fear a review of the way it has, over many years, discharged its regulatory function. Fine-tuning would meet all the Kennedy requirements. And perhaps some of the Society's structures and processes would be promoted to others as "good practice".

In all the circumstances, the members will surely expect that the original Charter provisions will be followed for the suggested alterations to the provisions of that Charter.

John Ferguson
Haywards Heath, West Sussex

Change to Byelaw is prejudicial

From Mr A. Tanna, FRPharmS

At the Council meeting held on 8 September, it was approved by a majority present to alter Byelaw 3, concerning the reimbursement of locum expenses for Council members engaged on Council business, in order to allow the director of a private limited liability company to claim locum expenses and remove the ambiguity which exists in the current Byelaw.

The alteration is as follows: replace "A member of Council who personally incurs expenditure in employment of a pharmacist to take personal control of registered retail pharmacy premises in order to comply with the requirements of the Medicines Act 1968 whilst the member of Council is engaged on Council business shall be entitled to reimbursement of sums expended not exceeding £200 per day" with "Where expenditure is incurred in employment of a pharmacist to take personal control of registered retail pharmacy premises in order to comply with the requirements of the Medicines Act 1968 while a member of Council normally present on those premises as sole pharmacist and registered proprietor of those premises is engaged on Council business, entitlement to reimbursement of that expenditure shall arise for a sum not exceeding £200 where that sum is incurred either by a private limited liability company of which the member of Council is a director or by the member of Council personally."

The Council is well aware of my feelings regarding the reimbursement of locum expenses. I therefore, through your letters columns, wish to tell the membership to be aware that the effect of the amendment will be that a large company that allows a pharmacist to join the Council will not be able to claim locum expenses for a replacement pharmacist while that Council member is engaged on Council business.

Shifting the goal post in this manner is prejudicial to members of the Council who are employed by large companies since their employer would be within their rights not to pay such locum expenses incurred and therefore the member would be unable to attend Council meetings.

Ashwin Tanna
London SE26

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Cave drawings)
Next Topic (Workforce census)