The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7246 p597
26 April 2003

Society summary

Reform of the Society: more questions answered

Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council member Digby Emson, a member of the Council's modernisation steering group, addresses some recent concerns about the Society's reform process and the Council's decision to seek a new Charter

There has been a lot of talk about what the Government will and will not accept from the Society's reform proposals. I have heard that the Government is prepared to treat the Society more leniently than the other regulators. What has the Government actually said?

The Government has made its requirements clear, both to the Society and to other pharmacy bodies, and it is simply not true that it is prepared to cut us any slack The NHS plan set out a common vision for all regulators back in 2000, with no exception for pharmacy. The Department of Health has consistently reinforced that message to us ever since. Let me give you just two examples. In October 2002, Dr Jim Smith, chief pharmaceutical officer at the Department of Health, wrote to the Young Pharmacists Group at the request of Alan Milburn, Secretary of State for Health, copying his letter to the Society. He said: "Ministers expect the RPSGB to come forward with proposals for modernisation. ... This will involve securing an increase in lay membership of the Council similar to that now being achieved for the other health professions' regulatory bodies. ... I would like to emphasise as firmly as possible that the Government [is] seeking these changes in order to strengthen the way the RPSGB operates and not in any sense ... to remove or weaken ... its ability to exercise leadership and advocacy on behalf of the profession".

Secondly, David Lammy, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, speaking on the record at a Council dinner, said that the Society needs "to make changes so that there is greater transparency, accountability and public involvement in [its] processes. ... Our vision is of a reformed Royal Pharmaceutical Society which, in its strengthened role as a modern regulator, continues to operate at arm's length from Government. Equally important, we expect the reforms to enhance the Society's ability to provide strong, independent leadership and advocacy for the profession as a whole in taking forward the agenda for pharmacy with patients, Government and the NHS".

What about the YPG's proposed model for the Society? Has Government ever said that it would not be acceptable to them?

I quoted a letter from the Department's chief pharmaceutical officer above. That letter also stated: "The proposal put forward by the YPG, involving all the regulatory functions being discharged by a board or committee of the Society, could not form the basis of a satisfactory proposal from the RPSGB."

The modernisation process is putting the Society's very existence at risk. If the over-arching council of health regulators were to take on the regulation of professionals itself one day, then the Society will have no role.

This is precisely the sort of situation that a new Charter can prevent.

We have no reason to think that this Government, or a future Government, would wish to take regulation of the health professions to itself. However, if that were to happen, bodies such as the General Medical Council, as it currently exists, would be entirely subsumed.

A new Charter would reinforce the Society's professional leadership role and ensure that it could continue in such a situation as a chartered body.

Is it not the first role of the Society to represent its members? After all, that is what it was set up to do 160 years ago.

We have seen many comments in the pharmacy press lately about the Society's role as a membership body. I understand people's concerns about this issue.

When the Society was originally established, its primary aim was to support the interests of pharmacy owners of the day, although even then there was an acknowledgement of the need to protect the public. Since then, its objectives have shifted towards professional leadership and public protection. This was seen most clearly in the 1930s when the Society became the regulatory body for pharmacy, with obligatory membership, while continuing to exercise a representational role.

And what do we mean by the Society's representational role? The crucial difference between the representational role of the Society and the role of a membership body as envisaged by some critics of the reform process, is that the Society cannot represent pharmacists' individual or commercial interests. The Society cannot act in conflict with the public interest. This is the situation now — the proposed reforms will not change this.

The Society's actual "representational" role spans its entire remit, covering regulatory and professional issues. It promotes pharmacy's contribution to health and aims to ensure that the voice of the profession is heard wherever policy relevant to pharmacy is made or implemented. It lobbies for change in the interests of both public and profession on issues across the full range of the Society's remit, whether regulatory or professional. The Society means to retain — and improve — this role.

It has been suggested that there may not be a pharmacist majority on the reformed Council. Let me make this clear — there will be a pharmacist majority. We want to strengthen the professional leadership role, not downgrade it. The new Charter marks an important watershed in the Society's history and it will enable the Society to become one of the leading professional leadership bodies.

The Council says it is committed to the widest possible Charter consultation process. If so, why doesn't it hold a referendum of the entire membership to establish the level of support for any proposed new Charter?

A referendum would be an inadequate and fairly meaningless method of doing this. There is not a simple Yes or No question to pose. The Council wants feedback on the draft, which is a complex legal document. You might have a situation where a pharmacist who was unsure about one article within the Charter found him or herself having to vote "No" to a statement of general confidence in the draft Charter. This would give an entirely misleading result.

Looking at the planned meetings across the country, few can doubt that the Council plans to hold the widest possible consultation process with the membership. As part of that it will be distributing feedback forms that encourage members to consider carefully whether the draft Charter will be fit for purpose, or whether changes are needed, in the light of the Society's integrated professional and regulatory remit. The Council will take account of all feedback it receives and make a final decision on the contents of the petition for a new Charter.

It is up to all members of Council, and the profession itself, to help ensure that the Society supports and develops pharmacists in the practice of their profession.

Will the Society be a body constituted to perform regulatory functions under the Health Act 1999?

The Society is not constituted under the Health Act. It is constituted as a corporate body under the Charter, with an integrated, professional and regulatory remit. The Council, as governing body of the Society, is constituted jointly by the Charter and by legislation.