Modernisation
Opportunity to ensure a better balance missed
From Dr W. Dawson, FRPharmS
I read with interest the debate in Council and the subsequent decisions
on the composition of a future — or was it reformed — Council
(PJ, 12 October, pp545–8). I am bitterly disappointed that the opportunity
was missed to ensure a better balance of representation among the pharmacist
members of the future Council. I understand from the President’s
presentation at the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Manchester (PJ,
28 September, p445–6) that professional advisory boards would be
used to provide suitable advice to Council where this is seen as useful
by either Council or the board. To me this misses the point that, in debate
within the Council chamber broad professional experience should be brought
to bear on all matters for debate and decision. We cannot allow the only
breadth in discussion to be provided by the lay members of the Council
and, with great respect, the evidence to date does not suggest that our
democratic process provides such breadth within our current Council members.
It also seems illogical, having had no distinctions on residence, region
or professional specialism for Council membership since the Society began,
we can now allow regional nomination for both lay and pharmacist members
but no sectoral qualifications. It may be politically correct but it does
not seem to ensure functional effectiveness. Assuming the logic of Scottish
and Welsh reserved places, then sectoral representation should be equally
valid and I see no issues in creating a structure where representation
is by election but within a defined structure of Council places. If four
pharmacist places were reserved in such a way — perhaps Scotland,
Wales, and two from education, industry or science — I think Council
would be the better for it.
My only hope in the debate is the comment from Dr Evans (PJ, 12 Oct,
p548) who notes that the constant drip of decision making is, in a sense,
interim and that the submission of the total process will require the
package to show integration and functionality. Perhaps a more effective
consultation process might inform Council members as they move towards
the final vote and I encourage the President and Council to try to achieve
this. It is clear that neither questionnaires in The Journal nor requests
to write to the modernisation steering group stimulate a wide response
but the meeting at BPC showed that there was tremendous interest in active
dialogue between membership and Council.
W. Dawson
Alton, Hampshire
Changing the Charter
From Mr D. Simpson, FRPharmS
Just for the record, Ashwin Tanna did not quite get his fractions right
when he raised the question in the Council meeting about the majorities
required to change the Charter and thereby the number of elected members
on the Society’s Council (PJ, 12 October, p548).
A motion in the Council would require a majority of three-quarters (not
two-thirds) of members present and voting. This, as Mr Tanna correctly
suggests, must be confirmed by a special general meeting of members convened
for the purpose by a majority of the same order. This was fully explained
by John Ferguson, the Society’s former secretary and registrar, in
his letter published on 5 October (p484).
The current Secretary and Registrar, Ann Lewis, suggested in response
to Mr Tanna that the now intended changes might be effected by an Order
under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999. But the wording of Section 60
makes it clear that such an Order can only be made for the purpose of
regulation of the profession. Thus an Order can only be used in connection
with the Society’s regulatory duties, and not its representational
and association functions.
It is my opinion that the changes in the composition of the Council that
are now envisaged go beyond regulation and would require a change in the
Charter, which would require a motion of the Council with a three-quarters
majority followed by a special general meeting. I do not see how these
steps can be avoided. The Council will, thus, have no option but to provide
a forum at which the members can make their views known and vote on the
proposals that have now been made to alter the size of the Council and
greatly increase the number of lay members (PJ, 28 September, p463).
Douglas Simpson
Beckenham, Kent
Will fees be halved?
From Ms A. Farrelly, MRPharmS
No taxation without representation! If the numbers of pharmacists represented
on the Council are halved will our fees also be halved?
Ann Farrelly
Wallington, Surrey
|
