The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7244 p521-525
12 April 2003

Society summary

April Council meeting

Further progress made on modernisation

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council has approved a further range of recommendations concerned with the modernisation of the Society (see panel, p522–23).

The Council's decisions cover topics such as eligibility criteria for service on the Council, the removal of members from the Council, filling casual vacancies on the Council, access to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists, ability to leave the Register voluntarily, requirements for registered names and addresses, character requirements for registration, the appointment of the Secretary/Chief Executive and Registrar, power to provide guidance on support workers, and the register of Council members' private interests.

Some of the decisions make explicit a currently implicit situation. An example is the first decision — that requirements for service on the Council should include eligibility to serve as charity trustees under the provisions of the Charities Act 1993. The Council noted that anyone disqualified from being a charity trustee is already ineligible for Council service because Council members are trustees of the Society's trusts. Reasons for ineligibility under the Act include convictions for offences involving dishonesty or deception, bankruptcy (undischarged), removal from office as a trustee by a court and disqualification from serving as a company director. Another explicit requirement for the future Council would be that candidates should be members of the Society (or registered technicians, if there are to be places on the Council for technician).

When the Council considered the recommendations on election candidates' declarations, ANDREW BURR suggested that "any other adverse decisions that might be relevant to membership of the Council" was too vague.

CHRISTINE GRAY (project manager for the modernisation programme) said that it was catch-all wording because it was impossible to define all relevant adverse decisions.

CLIVE JACKSON said that he was concerned that different people might interpret the wording in different ways. Some might declare everything; others might not. To guide them, a range of examples was needed.

When the Council considered the recommendation on the Council code of conduct, Mr JACKSON asked what would happen if the President was under suspicion.

The PRESIDENT said that a complaint about the President would need to be considered by the Privy Council members of Council.

During debate on the procedure for removing members from the Council, several Council members expressed concern that there would be no appeal mechanism. It was pointed out that a court would not necessarily grant a judicial review and that all such a review did was to decide whether procedures had been properly followed. It could not overturn a decision. It could also be slow and expensive.

Commenting on the recommendation that a sanction under this procedure should require a two-thirds majority vote of those Council members voting, the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR acknowledged that Council decisions were normally made by a simple majority vote, but said that a two-thirds majority would provide an important safeguard in the case of a sanction that could prevent that a Council member from taking part in Council activities. Other health regulators had a similar provision in their regulations.

At this point the Council referred back a recommendation concerning the suspension of a member of Council who was the subject of any investigations or proceedings against him. Council members expressed concern about the proposed period for which a suspension might last and also about the risk of prolonged suspension for a Council member who was also the superintendent pharmacist of a large multiple company and who would inevitably from time to time be party to investigations involving his or her company.

During discussion of the recommendation that registration certificates should be signed either manually or electronically, PETER CURPHEY advocated keeping to the tradition of certificates being individually signed by the officers of the day.

The PRESIDENT said that the motion merely gave an option for electronic signatures.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR added that if the Society regulated technicians there could be twice as many certificates to sign. It may be a matter on which they would wish to retain discretion because there were going to be significant increases in numbers and they should think about the future and retain discretion.

On the proposed removal of the requirement for the published Register to identify those who had entered the Register with an appropriate diploma from elsewhere in Europe, DIGBY EMSON said that it was helpful for employers to have some indication of this because of possible language issues.

The PRESIDENT said that employers had a right and responsibility to test language skills, but some people might be uncomfortable about signalling that a person who meets all the requirements is from elsewhere in the EU.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Society could give such information on request.

When the Council discussed the recommendation on the Registrar's power to disqualify a person from admission to the Register, Dr APPELBE said that the proposal did not seem to did not seem to square with the Human Rights Act. Leaving it to one person to make a decision it was hardly a fair hearing.

Ms GRAY said that advice had been given that the wording was acceptable because a candidate for admission to the Register did not have the same rights as someone facing removal from the Register. There would be a separate paper about a mechanism of appeal.

On the recommendation concerning the duty of schools of pharmacy to disclose character concerns regarding pharmacy graduates, HASSAN ARGOMANDKHAH asked for an assurance that graduates would be able to view these reports and challenge them.

The PRESIDENT said that anyone could demand to see what records were kept on them and had the right to challenge them.

Proposals for a Section 60 Order

The Council approved a list of measures concerning registration and continuing professional development that it wants to see included in an Order under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999. Many of the proposed measures update and strengthen powers and obligations set out in existing legislation (principally the Pharmacy Act 1954). Others would put into legislation some of the requirements of the Code of Ethics.

One proposed new measure is the power to limit the time between graduation and the start of preregistration training, the duration of preregistration training and the time between completion of preregistration training and registration.

Another proposal is the specific exclusion of the Society from classification as a "trade organisation" within the terms of Section 13 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. This would ensure that any challenges to Society decisions affecting disabled students or pharmacists (or pharmacy technicians) would be made against the Society as a health regulator rather than as a trade body. This measure had been recommended by counsel who had acted for the Society.

Also proposed is a power to specify and require programmes of study and/or experience for practice roles and specialisations.

Presenting the proposals document to the Council, the PRESIDENT said that it sought general powers in relation to what the Council wanted to do. It did not go into detail.

PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary, said that the Government had no desire for the Society to seek powers for revalidation under the initial Section 60 Order. It was likely that there would be a further Order or Orders under which revalidation could be introduced.

Mr CURPHEY said that he was concerned that mandatory CPD was be unsustainable without revalidation.

The PRESIDENT said that the matter would be raised again in discussions with the Department of Health.

Society's Charter

Giving the Council an update on the Charter proposals, the President emphasised that the Council had agreed that there should be a new Charter but had not yet agreed what should be in that Charter. A proposition had been put forward for debate, discussion, points of view and commentary on what had been included and indeed perhaps what had not been included and should be included. This was the whole purpose of the consultation.

The Council needed to know what members and other interested parties would like to see in the Charter and allow them to put forward points of view and arguments. The issues were complex and wide-ranging and needed full discussion and debate.

The President added that an e-mail response facility had been set up on the Society's website so that all those who wished to express views may do so. Presentation material had been tested in three branch talks, at which there had been a good debate and much interest in the topic. Additional funding was to be offered to the branches to cover extra meetings on the new Charter and roadshows were being planned (PJ, 5 April, p487). Precise details would be announced in due course. A feedback form was being produced to allow the Society to capture views in a coherent and up-to-date way.

LINDA STONE said that while branches would welcome the £300 per branch allocated for extra meetings, it was not enough for a large branch, which would have to spend at least £200 on mailings and room hire.

HASSAN ARGOMANDKHAH said that enough money should be made available to ensure that proper meetings were held.

ANDREW BURR thought that £300 was reasonable for an average branch. The idea of encouraging branches to come together was positive because it widened the debate and the views expressed.

PAT HOARE pointed out that the £300 for the first 80 branches that applied and there were 130 branches.

The PRESIDENT said that not all branches were active. The objective was to encourage branches to hold meetings. Specific issues relating to individual branches could be taken up outside the meeting.

CRHP

The PRESIDENT told the Council that he had attended an inaugural meeting of the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals before it officially came into being on 1 April. The meeting had highlighted that Council members would initially go through a learning experience to familiarise themselves with the activities of health regulatory bodies. There were legal requirements placed on this particular body within the regulations and those issues would also be addressed with a fair degree of urgency.

The CRHP chairman, Jane Wesson, had said that she would like to attend meetings of all the health regulators and one CRHP lay member had asked specifically to sit in on a meeting of the Society's Council. That would be take place probably on the second or third meeting of the new Council.

Common values in health care

The Secretary and Registrar reminded the Council that at an earlier meeting (PJ, 13 October 2001, p529) it had ratified a statement drafted on behalf of all the health regulatory bodies to set out common values of health care professionals — values that were already reflected in the Society's Code of Ethics. It was now planned to send the statement to a range of stakeholders for comment. The Society would be contributing to the list of stakeholders.

Public health strategy

Giving the Council an update on the development of a public health strategy for pharmacy (PJ, 22 February, p283), the Secretary and Registrar said that what was likely to be proposed was the development of a pharmacy strategy led by a coalition of four key organisations — the Society, PharmacyHealthLink (formerly the Pharmacy Healthcare Scheme), the Faculty of Public Health Medicine and the Department of Health.

There would be an internal strategy group consisting of staff from the four collaborating organisations. The group would be supported by a panel of expert advisers. The secretariat would be provided by PharmacyHealthLink, supported by a staff member from the Society.

In common with many other recent initiatives, a wider reference group would be established consisting of representation of the major pharmacy and public health organisations as well as the royal colleges and other professional bodies. It was expected that two Council members would be part of that reference group. PharmacyHealthLink received funding from the Department so it would be a joint initiative and that would take forward a strategy for pharmacy in public health.

Museum access and learning policy

The Council approved an access and learning policy for the Society's museum.

The PRESIDENT said that the museum had an active outreach. Arguably, artifacts and associated information had been seen in recent times by more individuals than was the case when the museum was presented in a more limited way within the building. Much good work was being done by the museum staff.

Dr NICOLA GRAY, chairman of the Science Committee, said that the Science Committee was pleased to have the museum within the remit of its activities. The document was to be taken in parallel with the acquisitions and disposals policy, and it was crucial to the future of the museum and its registration status.

The museum was overcoming constraints within which it was working within and building relationships with other museums. For example, it was working with the Hackney museum on a joint exhibition about the German Hospital (PJ, 1 March, p313). A key role was access to the collection and its availability to other museums.

Another important part of the document was about making information accessible to all, including those with impaired hearing or sight. The Science Committee commended the document. It also wanted the acquisitions and disposals policy to be kept under review in case there was a need to acquire something important.

Dr PHILLIDA ENTWISTLE said that she was cheered by what Dr Gray had said. She had been worried about the access arrangements. She said she had not been part of the body that had restricted access. However, the current arrangements clearly did not allow the full delivery of the mission statement. One way of widening access would be to get at least part of the collection out to a museum in the provinces. It might be possible for an exhibition to be arranged in the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry, which had a broad basis and free access for all with a large number of people attending. That could be done at the time of the British Pharmaceutical Conference and be promulgated as a joint venture. The museum in Manchester was keen to expand its chemistry basis. At the moment it was mainly engineering and aviation. Dr Entwistle said she would be pleased to help in the organisation that might be involved.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the paper before Council made it clear that it was essential to maintain the museum's status as a registered museum. She was grateful for the suggestions made. The museum's travelling display cases were currently being used at the Royal Free Hospital in connection with its 175th anniversary (PJ, 22 March, p417). They were greatly welcomed and had been seen by many people.

BRIONY HUDSON, keeper of the museum collections, said that she would welcome the opportunity to work with the museum in Manchester. Working with other museums was the ideal way to make the collection known to as many people as possible. The previous week she had had a preliminary meeting with the museum curators of the British Dental Association and British Optical Association to consider the possibility of a national touring exhibition on the theme of health on the high street.

GERALD ALEXANDER said that costs to the owners of displays could be reduced as result of using roving exhibitions nationally and even internationally. Museums around Britain would be expected to handle insurance and the provision of looking after the collection. A rolling programme of exhibitions had the advantage of open access to virtually anyone in the country. That should be applauded.

European Union

The Council agreed that at a future meeting it would consider a policy paper on the membership of the United Kingdom delegation to the Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union, the term of office of the Society's representative and the arrangements for the leadership of the UK delegation.

The UK delegation consists of representatives from the Society, the National Pharmaceutical Association and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, who attend the thrice-yearly PGEU general assembly. The term of office for the Society's representative has never been defined in the past, nor have the arrangements for the selection of the head of delegation.

A policy paper is to be drawn up after discussions with the NPA and PSNI.

Office of Fair Trading

Reporting on developments with regard to the Office of Fair trading report on control of entry to pharmacy dispensing contracts, the President said that the Society, like other organisations in pharmacy, had been briefing Government officials, the media, parliamentarians and assembly members of all parties on the issue. An adjournment debate, four current early day motions and numerous policy questions on the issue in both Houses of Parliament indicated a high level of awareness and understanding of the issues.

The Health Select Committee was shortly to inquire into the OFT report and the President and the Secretary and Registrar would attend as observers. The Society had been asked to submit a memorandum to the committee, which it had done.

Retirement of Dr Gordon Appelbe

At his last full Council meeting before his retirement from the Council, Dr Gordon Appelbe was thanked for his contribution to the Council during his 12 years of membership.

The PRESIDENT said that Dr Appelbe probably had a longer association with the Society's headquarters building than anyone else who entered it from time to time. After a long and distinguished career with the Society, he served on the Council for 12 years, during which time he had approached his duties in a somewhat iconoclastic and totally independent way without fear or favour. He had contributed significantly in a number of ways. He had acted as an officer as Treasurer of the Society, and in every respect the Council had appreciated his knowledge of the Society and his knowledge of the law and of ethics as it related to the Society.

Thanking the President, Dr APPELBE said that he expected to attend the Council's short May meeting and felt it would be more appropriate to say a few words on that occasion