The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7240 p379-380
15 March 2003

Society summary

Special Council meeting

Council decides to seek new Charter

The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, at a special meeting on 5 March, decided to seek a new Charter for the Society at the same time as seeking new legislation for the profession. It will petition for a new Charter only after wide consultation with the membership on the content of the Charter.

At an informal session earlier in the day the Council had considered a paper on the topic and heard the views of Robert Bulling (Allen & Overy), an expert in the law relating to chartered bodies and a member of the Society's modernisation steering group.

The paper said that being governed by both Charter and legislation gave the Society greater flexibility and autonomy, allowing it to carry out a broad range of activities, provided they did not conflict with the public interest. However, the Charter was deficient in a number of ways and needed to be updated in tandem with the new legislation the Society was seeking.

Small amendments to the Charter would not be sufficient to achieve clarity and consistency. A new Charter would demonstrate the Society's commitment to its wider functions as a professional body and ensure that it could fulfil its remit as a modern regulator and professional body.

The paper added that the Department of Health agreed that the best approach to reform was to work towards new legislation and a new Charter at the same time.

The paper concluded by recommending that the Council should seek both new legislation and a new Charter.

In the light of the views expressed during the morning, the paper's recommendation was revised to read: "To seek both new legislation and a new Charter and to seek the views of the profession on this by a range of means before proceeding further."

Opening the debate during the Council meeting, the PRESIDENT said that the position the Council had reached that morning, on the advice of an expert, was that if it determined to continue with the existing Charter, then powers of the Society in those circumstances would almost certainly fall within legislation and not within the Charter. If there were no new Charter it was likely that legislation would be developed in a way that would leave the Charter as a historical artefact.

The issue was whether the Council wanted the powers of the Society to be largely confined to legislation, which the Parliament of the day would determine, or whether it wanted to see the profession continue to be self-regulated, with powers derived from both Charter and legislation. The advice given that morning was that the existing Charter put a great question mark about that, whereas a new Charter would enable the Society to move forward.

ASHWIN TANNA formally proposed that there should be a new Charter.

Dr GORDON APPELBE seconded the proposal.

CHRISTINE GLOVER said that she was not prepared to vote on the matter until she had an assurance that there would be an explanation for the membership as to how the Council had arrived at the consensus it had reached that morning.

The PRESIDENT said that would be essential.

HEMANT PATEL said that he wanted to know the reasons for a new Charter.

The PRESIDENT said that, following the morning's discussions, everyone round the table well understood the position. But the reasons would need to be articulated.

ALISON EWING said that it was important for the Council to point out not just the reasons for a new Charter but also what would happen without a new Charter.

LINDA STONE, commenting on the aim of seeking both new legislation and a new Charter, asked whether the Council could link the Section 60 Order and the new Charter to the same time frame.

The PRESIDENT said that he believed that it could. The Council had already agreed to seek a Section 60 Order. Advice had been given that there were advantages in doing that concurrently with seeking a new Charter. But first the Council had to establish the principle of whether there should be a new Charter.

PETER CURPHEY said that he thought that for the best motives they had tried to turn consensus into recommendation halfway between sending out the agenda and having the meeting. He wished they would stick to the agenda.

The PRESIDENT said he understood Mr Curphey's point. The recommendation could be split into separate recommendations relating to a new charter, new legislation and a process of consultation.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that if Council agreed that they should seek a new Charter, as it was already seeking new legislation, those matters could be pursued contemporaneously. It was clear in the papers that had been circulated that matters could come into effect to match each other. They were seeking to achieve that.

The PRESIDENT then put to the vote Mr Tanna's motion that there should be a new Charter.

The Council voted unanimously in favour of the motion.

The President said that the Council would now consider the part of the recommendation that was concerned with seeking to introduce new legislation. The legislation might not be contemporaneous with the Charter but the implementation of the two measures would be contemporaneous.

Mrs STONE asked what would happen if the Society obtained the Section 60 Order quickly but did not get the new Charter rapidly because the process took longer.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the matter had been discussed with Mr Bulling and the Department. They would seek the two in parallel. A process was in place for the Order and the Department was hoping to consult on it later in the year. It was likely that the consultation would be completed probably by the end of 2003 or early in 2004. Mr Bulling had indicated that there was no reason why the Council could not develop a new Charter within the same time frame. The critical time factor would be the consultation with the membership to assure the Council that it had support for the change. Consultation was the key and the Council would require a robust process for consultation.

Dr APPELBE said that it was common for Orders or Statutory Instruments not to give the date of implementation. Usually Statutory Instruments stated the date on which they were made. But there was no reason why the Statutory Instrument could not be issued and the dates coincide eventually when the Charter was granted.

PHILIP GREEN (deputy secretary of the Society) said that the two matters could be timed to come into effect simultaneously with no difficulty. The same people, in terms of administration and in terms of the Privy Council, who decided on the Section 60 Order could also decide on the Charter. Hence it was in everyone's interest to co-ordinate things. There was a strong likelihood that they could do so within the time scale required.

Mr (H.) PATEL asked how the process would work to guarantee that the Charter and the legislation were considered contemporaneously.

Mr GREEN said that ideally the proposals needed to be developed side by side so that they could be considered together. Each affected the other. But, as Mr Bulling had explained that morning, there were significant benefits in looking at what could be incorporated within the Charter. If the Council did not do that, the Department, to achieve what it wanted, would put more into the Order. In terms of time scale, the process for the Order had a published time scale in terms of consultation. It did not require the same time scale as primary legislation, and there were time slots within parliamentary business for Orders to be dealt with.

The PRESIDENT said he wanted to put to the Council the second option, which encompassed what had been said. The recommendation was that the Council sought both new legislation and a new Charter. [Agreed]

The President said that the next part of the recommendation was that the Council should seek the views of the profession by a range of means before it proceeded to petition for a new Charter.

ANDREW BURR said that he welcomed the Council's unanimous decision to go for a new Charter. It was long overdue. Many colleagues shared his aspiration for a modern profession that delivered everything they wanted to see. A move on from the 1953 Charter would be a great step forward for the profession.

The Council needed to consult widely to make sure that the members were fully aware of the situation. The consultation would probably take from three to six months. It should give as many members as possible the opportunity to understand the implications of the Council's decision. Also, those who had concerns would welcome the opportunity to express them.

People should take the time and trouble to understand the issues, or they would come to the debate with incomplete information. Therefore the profession should be encouraged to gain an understanding, and members should take time and effort to read carefully why the decision had been taken, what were the consequences and how that would fulfil ambitions in the future.

DIGBY EMSON said that he welcomed the decision to seek a new Charter and also to link the new Charter to the Section 60 developments to achieve the right balance. The right balance would empower the Society to meet the aspirations of the profession.

He also welcomed the period of consultation. The Council had an obligation to explain the approach to the membership. It was important to enter into open dialogue and listen seriously to the members' views through the widest possible means. The Council should seek to convince the membership that the future of the profession was in its own hands. If the profession did not seize the initiative then it would be denied opportunity, influence and power.

Mrs STONE said that it was important that the new Charter was flexible and enabling to allow the Society to meet the aspirations and expectations of the membership within an up-to-date framework. She proposed: "That before petitioning for the new Charter the Council seek the views of the profession by a range of means."

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that they needed to be clear that they would seek views on the concept but had taken the decision that they would be seeking a new Charter.

Mr CURPHEY said that there had been a clamour of misunderstanding of the Council's motives and intentions. As a Council member for a long time, he took that personally. He found it disappointing that people would think that Council members intended to destroy their profession, but that seemed to be the tone of some comments that they had seen.

Perhaps people misunderstood because the current Charter was couched in difficult language. A new Charter would make crystal clear what was meant by "safeguard and promote the interests of the members in the exercise of the profession of pharmacy", It would confirm that that was in the public interest. If that were explicit, then those who had misinterpreted the Council's intent could no longer do so if they were prepared to listen to the arguments — and he believed that they were prepared to do so.

There was also the opportunity to headline some of the changes that the Section 60 Order would bring in because it was hoped to tie the two together, and not seek views just on the new Charter.

The view of their critics was: "The Council does not understand and could not care less about our views and is intent on destroying us." He wanted to change that to: "You must try harder because we think that we know what you're trying to do but you are not doing the communications very well." There was a strong chance of succeeding if the Council put the arguments clearly and openly by a variety of means, such as Pharmaceutical Journal articles and roadshows. He believed that commonsense and their thoughtful process would prevail.

Answering a comment about the Charter's wording, the PRESIDENT said that he did not feel it appropriate to talk about the precise form of wording. That morning it had been highlighted that the Charter was a constitutional instrument. It had to stand the test of time. The purpose of consultation was to hear views and to gain an understanding of what was wanted and how that could be managed. He did not wish to go any further than that. But the strength of feeling was well understood.

Miss EWING said that she was proud to be part of the Council that had taken a leadership role and had made such a huge decision. Some people held the Charter as an untouchable. The Council had led the profession in taking the decision to seek a new Charter. There was no conspiracy involved: the Council was seeking changes for open and transparent reasons. Had it not taken the opportunity to do so, there would have been challenges in the future. The Council had made the right decision.

HELEN REMINGTON said that the current Charter did not adequately meet the Society's needs as a professional body. The decision to seek a new Charter should be reassuring to the profession. It was the start of making sure that the Council set out its stall and modernised the professional body as well as the regulatory body. She was pleased to support the decision and she looked forward to the debate with the membership about how professional leadership could flow from the new Charter. The single message should be that the existing 50-year-old Charter was in urgent need of attention, and seeking a new Charter was as an opportunity for the next 50 years.

Dr NICOLA GRAY said that putting the Charter next to the Section 60 Order and talking to the members about both would crystallise the full picture. Dealing with one without the other had not served the Council well up to now. Members had to be warned that they might be disappointed by the lack of detail within the Charter.

Professor BOB MICHELL said that the reason he found himself on the Council as a Privy Council nominee was precisely because he believed firmly that in areas like health care enlightened self-regulation worked infinitely better in the public interest than most of the alternatives. Self-regulation was not a God-given right; it was an increasingly scarce privilege. A new Charter in effect bought the profession the opportunity to be as flexible and adaptable as it wished, over an almost infinite time scale, provided that what was done was not inconsistent with the public interest. That was the only detail of the Charter that really mattered for the profession because it was so precious.

Dr APPELBE wondered how many members of the Society knew what a Charter was. Nobody had asked that question. In any consultation process it would be useful to highlight perhaps three specific aspects. Examples might be furthering the interests of the members and enforcing standards in education. That would therefore avoid people asking what was to be in the Charter. It would be useful to give an illustration.

Agreeing, the PRESIDENT said that it was a matter of highlighting the issues in language that people understood.

CLIVE JACKSON welcomed the decision to seek a new Charter. Not only was the move necessary for the Society to remain relevant and effective in the 21st century, but also it could offer additional benefits and opportunities. He looked forward to the profession having an opportunity to be equally informed of the issues that had led to the Council's decision and also to the membership being consulted in an effective and transparent way to ensure their input and ownership of the crucial decision. He exhorted all pharmacists to consider the detail carefully and contribute fully in a constructive way to the process.

The Council then voted unanimously in favour of the motion that, before petitioning the new Charter, it should seek the views of the profession by a range of means.

The PRESIDENT thanked the Council for the quality of discussion on a matter that was perhaps the most significant decision for the Society in 50 years.

Mr TANNA said that it was a historic decision.

The PRESIDENT said that the conclusions reached would do credit to the Council and to every member in due course