The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7252 p790-791
7 June 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 90K

  SGM
  New Charter
  CD prescribing
  Asthma
  CFC-free inhaling
  Remuneration
  Branding
  Pharmacy closures
  Yellow cards
  Patient packs
  Penicillin
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

New Charter

Proposed charter fails to recognise Scotland's needs

From Mr F. J. Owens, MRPharmS, and Mr R. A. Shiels, MRPharmS

It is an indication of the robustness of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's 1953 Charter that it is only now, 50 years later, we are examining whether it continues to meet the needs of the profession. Much has changed in the intervening years. It is therefore right that Council now addresses this issue. Clearly, any new Charter should aspire to achieve a level of robustness similar to that of its predecessor and reflect the delicate balance required in providing for the Society's dual role as both a professional and regulatory body.

The re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament on 1 July 1999 fundamentally changed the political and administrative face of Scotland. The National Health Service across the United Kingdom is currently undergoing rapid change. It is likely that each of the four health administrations will develop in different ways. In particular, through the Scottish Parliament, there is a clear desire to adopt Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.

The Society's Scottish Department is currently established by way of Article 16 of the 1953 Charter, and the Scottish Executive, its democratically elected body, by existing Byelaw. Article 6(4) of the proposed Charter falls short of that required to meet the needs of the profession in Scotland, where responsibilities for health, community care and social justice are all devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is essential that the Society continues to recognise a separate need for a suitable Scottish structure within any new Charter.

Although similarities exist across the various UK pharmacy plans, there are significant differences in both emphasis and priority. In meeting the health care needs of the Scottish population, it will be essential that Parliament and the Scottish Executive Health Department are able to draw on local expertise and benefit from proactive advice. We believe that effective responsibility must be delegated to the Scottish Department's governing body, the Scottish Executive. Failure to do so will not serve the needs of the Society's members in Scotland and will result in missed opportunities for pharmacy.

Article 3 of the draft Charter allows the Council to dispose of property whatsoever or wheresoever situated, with Article 6(2) permitting that any such actions which require a special general meeting are set out in regulation. We consider that any sales or purchases in Scotland as proposed by the Council should only be made with the approval of the Scottish Executive of the Scottish Department.

We believe the current draft Charter fails to recognise fully the needs of the profession in Scotland. It will be important that Scottish concerns are acknowledged in any revisions, and that we be provided further opportunity to comment on those revisions as and when they are made.

Frank Owens
Falkirk, Stirlingshire

Ron Shiels
Culloden, Inverness-shire

Let us hear it for the pharmacist!

From Mr P. Jenkins, FRPharmS

Most of us are unfamiliar with the rules of construction of Royal Charters. As the PJ has said, "a charter is an enabling document and the objects and powers contained within it should be as broad and high level as possible", so those with access to specialised advice are in a position to argue that detailed suggestions for inclusion are out of place and should be reworded or even dropped.

However there are two subjects that I feel strongly enough about to stick my neck out and say should be spelt out as obviously as possible in any final document. One is the status of the Welsh Executive and the other is the protection of pharmacists.

The first is covered by article 16 in the existing charter, revised as article 6(4) in the draft new version (PJ, 22 March, pull-out section). But why not be specific in the cases of the Scottish Department and the Welsh Executive in the new version? These are important bodies working with and to rules that are different from those that apply in Westminster. By all means leave the door open for the setting up of new "departments on a geographical basis" but if it was acceptable to name Scotland in the existing Charter then it must be acceptable to name both in the new version. A precedent has been set so why break it?

My second, not so parochial, concern relates to the replacement of article 4 of the existing charter, which says the Society must "promote the interests of members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy", by article 3(1) in the new version. Although we do regularly consider the "public benefit" as pharmacists, a strong profession backed by a strong headquarters is also important for the public's long term good. So let us hear it for the pharmacist. If this was acceptable as an object before, what has changed to make it superfluous now? At this time we need the stated, perhaps even blatant, support of all our organisations.

We support our Society. Let us see it support us.

Peter Jenkins
Cardiff

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Special general meeting)
Next Topic (CD precscribing)