The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7232 p82-83
18 January 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 80K

  Period-of-treatment fee
  Community pharmacy
  Locum pharmacy
  Hospital pharmacy
  PILs
  ReQuip
  The Profession
  Women's health
  CPD
  Scottish Executive
  The Society
  Registration exam
  Supervision
  The Register
  Christmas miscellany

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Council must be seen to justify its decisions

From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS

The December 2002 meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council embraced some of the most momentous events for the profession in 70 years, yet The Journal (14 December 2002, pp863–6) treats us to bullet points and statements of decisions. Although Hemant Patel's well-intentioned little motion on smoking merited quotations from five speakers, reports on the future shape of the Council, the possibility of a change to charitable status and the restructuring of our publishing arm for possible future disposal quote only one minor interjection by one elected member on only one of these topics. Was there no dissent, no praise, no condemnation? Was testing of administrators and committees totally absent? Have we really moved from debate to diktat, or has reporting of Council meetings been extinguished, like Burns's "strangled babe"? What is needed in these circumstances is not communiqués from the Council or considerations by correspondents but detailed reports of the proceedings leading to these decisions.

Any self-respecting conspiracy theorist could be forgiven for seeing a parallel between "a good day for burying bad news" and the announcement of these wide-ranging and far-reaching decisions published a mere 10 days before Christmas and the seasonal gap in PJ publication. Since I am more of a realist, I was entranced by the dangling carrot of a potential tax saving to the Society of £1.1m per year through the adoption of charitable status — this by a Society which has only once ever had a tax provision of £0.5m. Is the Exchequer really going to pay us for being a charity? I would suggest that the membership might appreciate a more detailed explanation of such a magical mechanism as well as the other information on the possible benefits of the proposed change on which the Council based its decision.

Given the poverty of reporting on the decisions of the December Council, it may well be that the electorate will be anxious to learn of the stance of those who seek re-election and those who seek to replace them. Remembering that much has been made in past manifestos of the virtues of open government, there is a requirement for clear and accurate reporting of the manner by which decisions are reached by our elected representatives. Not one single member of Council has been elected with a mandate to change the nature of our Society or to change the nature of our publications division. There may well be some slight possibility that such alterations could be beneficial but the Council must be seen to justify the reasons for its decisions and to credit the electorate with the ability to evaluate these reasons.

Ian Caldwell
Larkhall, South Lanarkshire

Problems with branch funding formula

From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS

There are two issues arising from the new branch funding formula agreed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council at its December 2002 meeting (PJ, 14 December 2002, p865) upon which I wish to comment.

First, despite strong representations made at the branch secretaries' meeting in October 2002 and at branch and regional committee meetings in the north west, it is still not clear whether the Council will take account of sponsorship or equipment reserves when allocating funding over and above the reduced basic grant. The Society's circular MS044 of 11 December 2002 states: "Only those branches holding less than £1,000 in their accounts will be eligible to apply for this extra funding." Thus, many branches may be penalised because sponsorship money or equipment reserves would take them over the £1,000 limit if included in the calculations. This would be a major disincentive to such branches seeking sponsorship in the future. There needs to be a clear statement from the council that the £1,000 limit relates only to money from the branch grant and will not include sponsorship or equipment reserves.

Secondly, an additional sum of £25,000 has been earmarked to help branches discuss and communicate issues arising from the modernisation of the Society. The ring-fencing of such a sum is another instance of central control over branch activities. I would have thought that the Council had spent more than enough of members' fees on modernisation issues already. It would be far better to let branches decide on which professional activities this money could be spent or let it it be used to increase the miserly £250 being made available to send one first-time attender to the British Pharmaceutical Conference.

I hope that the implementation process will be simple and effective. In the meantime, perhaps these issues can be addressed speedily.

W. T. Brookes
Stoke-on-Trent

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Scottish Executive)
Next Topic (Registration exam)