The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7229 p913
21/28 December 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Socrates had a pupil, Antisthenes, who founded a School which eschewed ease, wealth and the enjoyable life. These were the Cynics, and their attitude has come down to us meaning a cynic — someone who has little faith in the sincerity of his or her fellow human beings. Now that The Journal's surveys and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's consultations are over, perhaps we should take a cynic's overview of the ultimate self-regulating body.

This is an organisation that has no entrance requirements, does not demand continuing development of its members, exerts discipline by the arcane process of whipping (never in public and always by one's colleagues), determines its own financial rewards irrespective of performance and never, ever in any way allows public participation! It does, of course, claim to be democratic. I write of Parliament and its offspring, Government. It might be amusing to set some of The Journal's questions regarding the "modernisation" of our Society against the reality of the functioning of this organisation.

Should there be requirements for fitness to practise? Parliament is an amateurs' paradise — no qualifications, no training, no CPD, no practice certificate and you can carry on the day job providing you turn up for Divisions. This means being present to vote, irrespective of whether you have heard the debates or not.

Should there be an age limit for members? Wellington, Gladstone Heath — all these and others continued beyond State retirement age, but how effective did they (or do they) continue to be?

Should there be a limit to term of office? To become "Father of the House" requires several decades of uninterrupted membership. This allows long-serving members to remind the House of its remit, responsibilities and precedents — folk memory made flesh. There is no limit to the length of time for which one can cling to office providing one has a safe seat. Renomination to such a safe seat often depends on a small local cabal which has no pretence to be democratic.

Should there be sectoral representation? Any Member of Parliament who is given a portfolio or chairmanship of a committee is expected to be a master of his or her brief no matter what their background, origin or experience. Lawyers have been Chancellors and miners have been Ministers of Health. Geographically, Churchill sat for Dundee and Taylor sits for Southend. The problems of dealing with two outstanding candidates within the same sector at the same time are resolved by nominating both but for different seats no matter where there may be.

Should lay people discipline members? Sanctions are applied by the Committee on Standards and Privileges — a designation which is itself an interesting use of language. There is no public participation, the attitude appearing to be that no pleb could possibly understand Parliamentary structure, traditions or responsibilities. Hence the proceedings are often held in camera. The mechanism used to decide who should be subject to the deliberations of the Committee on Standards and Privileges could be considered to lack the transparency which would be expected in the public sector. Breaches of procedure within the chamber are dealt with by the Speaker who is, by definition, an MP and is thus disciplining an equal and doing so without any input to represent the public interest. Ethical reports, such as those of Nolan and Cadbury, may be seen as "outsider" opinions but they have only the force of recommendation, which can be adopted in whole, adopted in part or rejected entirely.

Should there be technician representation? There is a vast army of technicians serving Parliament, including civil servants, advisers and researchers, who are mainly regulated by the head of the civil service. They are never found lolling on the green benches nor are their voices heard in the chamber or committee rooms. Their unacknowledged contributions are, of course, provided at public expense. These technicians have generous and index-linked pensions and may be "recognised" in the Honours List. Most are members of a union and this provides preferential discounts on financial products as well as rarely used militant muscle. Any technician is free to join the Parliament. They must, of course, seek success in the usual way.

Should the chief departmental officers attend meetings? The Cabinet is, in trade union terms, a closed shop. Not even MPs may attend. It plays its cards close to its chest in order to conceal the differences of opinion and divisions within the Cabinet and so obscure potential conflict. This also conceals its intentions in any diplomatic, financial or political negotiations. Informed input is drawn from the reports of select committees and from the findings of the civil service.

What should be the extent of lay participation and how should these be appointed? MPs are not only the elected representatives of the people, they are members of the public with the expectations, ambitions, desires, aspirations and fears of the rest of us. They are the public writ large. There is considered to be no need for lay representation because they are lay representatives, albeit in a party politicised fashion. Because of this, members are able to set aside any affiliations to their own professions, trades or callings and act purely as ordinary people, providing their actions conform to the wishes of their party whips. Members are, of course, elected. The revisionary second chamber has recently had its hereditary selective membership revised in order to increase the number of appointed life peers. Anyone can apply to be considered as a life peer. Nomination is in the gift of the ruling party and the Prime Minister, subject to confirmation by the Crown, but the process of consideration could be seen as somewhat opaque, Byzantine even. It is unclear whether the Lords is an old boys' (and girls') club, an engine for racial integration or a political rubber stamp — or indeed whether or not it is any of these. It is equally unclear whether or not the Lords has the defined primary function of acting in the public interest.

The word "modernisation" implies that that which currently exists is old-fashioned and inefficient and this brings into play two conflicting concepts. The first is that constance is a rock to which to cling and the second is that improvement and development are fundamental to the success of any organisation. Nolan and Cadbury notwithstanding, it is obvious that politicians embrace the first concept and export the second. Put more simply "pots calling kettles black" and "not in my back yard" would seem to be the driving attitudes of the Government towards the changes which the health professions are expected to effect.

Cynicism is an extreme form of argument and views can often be expressed in gentler terms. Michael Prowse, writing in The Financial Times on 29 September, argued that "Governments with large parliamentary majorities should not try to control every aspect of society" — a gentler but still telling viewpoint.