PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

	The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 270 No 7236 p231 15 February 2003	This page Reprint Photocopy
		PDF* 90K

Letters

  OFT report
  Supermarket pharmacy
  PSNC
  Community pharmacy
  Practice pharmacists
  Dispensing
  Hospital pharmacy
  Insulin labelling
  Emergency boxes
  Advertising
  Locum pay
  Medication errors
  The Profession
  The Society
  Council election

Letters to the Editor

* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

The Society

Still a lack of transparency in Council's proposals

From a group of past presidents of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Last summer we wrote to The Pharmaceutical Journal (6 July 2002, p15) to express our concerns about the Council's proposals for reform. We were pleased to be invited by the President to Lambeth to discuss our concerns.

In the course of that meeting we made clear our opposition to action that would weaken the ability of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to act as the professional representative body for pharmacists and to discharge its chartered objects. We also expressed concerns about the processes by which proposals for fundamental change were being brought forward.

At the conclusion of what we believed to be a constructive meeting we expressed a hope that we would not need to reiterate our concerns. Sadly since that meeting there has been no improvement in the processes. In recent weeks we have learnt that the Council wishes to seek charitable status for the Society, and wants its publishing activities to be managed through a separate, wholly owned com-pany. The members have not been advised of what the implications of charitable status are for the Charter, how services to the membership can be improved, and how a separate publishing company will generate income for the profession.

The Society is now considering the registration of pharmacy technicians. It remains unclear whether this is to include dispensing assistants but the total numbers involved could be substantial. If registered with the Society, such persons would be entitled to two reserved seats on the Council, which would not be "lay" places. If such persons were added to a reformed Council with the additional proposed composition of 30 to 40 per cent lay Council members, pharmacists themselves would lack any form of substantial overall majority. It is unlikely that such a Council would be properly able to promote the interests of members in the exercise of their profession of pharmacy. Such particular concerns over technicians starkly illustrate our belief that a number of decisions have apparently been made in isolation which in themselves do not seem of great moment but which taken together could have momentous consequences.

In the PJ (4 January, p31), the President emphasised the unprecedented importance of the decisions to be taken about the future role of the Society. Transparency requires an understanding of the long-term vision so that the individual proposals can be understood. It is with great regret and concern that we write to record the lack of transparency in the processes adopted by the Council. It does no credit to the Council and we believe it is not in the interests of the membership.

John Balmford
Jim Bannerman
Arnold Beckett
Geoff Booth
Ian Caldwell
David Coleman
Bill Darling
Herbert Grainger
Colin Hitchings
Hopkin Maddock
David Sharpe
Nick Wood
Past Presidents
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

We did indeed have a thoroughly useful and constructive discussion when we met the past presidents in the summer. I am sorry if the past presidents are again in difficulty. I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the drivers that require the Society to modernise and the process for decision-making that the Council has adopted.

The Government has made it absolutely clear that it expects the Society to change its ways of working to include more lay members on our Council in order to become more accountable. This need to change is not negotiable but the positive message is that this is intended to strengthen, not detract from, the Society's role in providing professional leadership and advocacy, which the Government supports. Put starkly, the Society had two choices: engage in the modernisation programme and actively shape the profession's future, or cling to the past and have change imposed on us. By choosing the former option, the Council has given the profession a say in its own future; to have chosen the latter would have done a disservice to the membership.

The process that the Council has adopted for making decisions on the Society's future has involved consultation on the direction of travel; informal Council discussion days to consider views and frame strategy; input from a steering group, including Council members and external experts, to shape proposals; and then decision-making by the Council at its formal meetings.

The proposal in principle to manage the publications operation within a wholly owned company was adopted in order to strengthen its management and governance and to allow the business to develop more effectively. The Council reaffirmed that it has no intention of divesting itself of any part of its publishing operation, which makes an important contribution to the Society's income and to the scientific and professional knowledge base. Detailed proposals are now being worked on for the Council to discuss.

The Council has decided that the Society should regulate pharmacy technicians. It follows, therefore, that there should be places on the Council for this group and the Council has decided that, should its plans to register technicians proceed, the number of places should be two.

The Council took the decision to seek charitable status for the Society because it will confer considerable benefits and advantages. We are now exploring how this might be done and have yet to analyse in detail the implications of this for the Charter or, indeed, any other element of our constitution or ways of working. However, given that the Society's functions as a regulatory, professional and benevolent organisation appear to be closely aligned with the criteria for charitable status, registration as a charity should bring clear benefits.

The issue of the Charter is, of course, one of the key questions that the Council will be considering when it decides on the most appropriate route to the reform of the Society. The Society is governed by both Charter and legislation, each of which confers a range of powers and duties. Potentially, reform of the Society could be achieved solely through legislation or by the route of both Charter and legislation.

Many decisions have been made over the past year and there are many more still to be made. The timetable is tight — for some perhaps uncomfortably so — because the Government requires our proposals for regulatory change in the early part of this year. I do not expect that every pharmacist will agree with every decision that is taken but the past presidents will know, from their time on the Council, that difficult decisions cannot be shied away from on the grounds that they may be unpopular.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The Profession)
Next Topic (Council election)