The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7253 p824
14 June 2003

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 65K

Why have a shotgun wedding when we can have blissful cohabitation?

By Hassan Argomandkhah

I hope that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council has taken note of the feelings that were expressed at the special general meeting on 1 June and, more importantly, it will act upon them. Great leadership is not about bulldozing your way forward in total disregard for others; it is about taking the masses with you, not because they are afraid of you but because they respect and trust you.

The Council would continue to have us believe that it is offering us the best of both worlds — a dual role body, being both professional and regulatory. But the Society currently has a dual role, not because this is the Government's preferred model, but because, in the past, governments were happy to take a back seat and let professions self-regulate. Pharmacy has been incredibly good at it. But that is the past.

Post Kennedy, this no longer sits comfortably with Westminster and, more importantly, Downing Street. So we needed a solution, and this is when pharmacy's problems really started.

The Council, in wishing to keep both the professional and regulatory functions within the same Council, has had to propose a wedding. This is no ordinary wedding: it is a shotgun wedding, and such weddings usually end in tears if they are allowed to proceed.

The Council has been led to believe that the only acceptable model for self-regulation is for the ultimate Council responsible (regardless of whether it delegates its powers or not) to have a large lay representation. Hence the Council have been looking at all sorts of permutations to marry the regulatory groom with the professional bride. This was when the shotgun came out. But did anyone check to see if the shotgun was loaded?

The Government has enough on its plate without having to regulate professions. Self-regulation suits the Government as much as it suits us. It does not cost them any money, time or blame if things go wrong — as long as there are no more cases like Bristol and Shipman. It suits us as we get to keep all of the income from fees. But, as speakers at the SGM so eloquently argued, whose side will the new Council take at the times of conflict of interest?

We, the ordinary members, want a professional body that looks after our interests. Let us not forget that the Society was handed down to us by all our hardworking pharmacist forefathers.

This being our society, the members prefer a two-board model. We have been told by the Council that a single professional body with panels of regulatory committees will not be acceptable to the Government. The Government wants the ultimate Council responsible for regulation to be formed with a large lay representation to ensure that adequate public safeguards are in place and public safety is not compromised over professional self-interest.

However, both the Kennedy report and expert legal opinion obtained by the "Save Our Society" campaign say that a two-board model is possible and should be acceptable for delivering a modern regulator. Let us be clear about one thing: this or any subsequent Government is only interested in our regulatory framework. So, in the rush to replace our current regulatory framework we must be careful we do not lose our professional representation role.

We cannot afford to run into the trap of only considering scenarios when things are running smoothly. We have no choice other than to take account of how the Government views our regulatory structure and how it would appear when held up to the mirror of public interest. Post Shipman and Bristol, the Government quite rightly insists that public interest must take a higher priority than the rights of the professions and this applies to any profession, pharmacy included. But this applies only to the regulation of the profession and not to the membership and benevolence of our profession.

So, we need a viable alternative model to what has been put forward by the Society's modernisation steering group or we will be back at square one, with the Council's model the only viable option on the table. The SGM was not anti-modernisation, but against the current modernisation proposals. We must find a new way — a third way — that is fully workable, is acceptable to all sides, and can deliver for us, the members, a professional body that looks after our interests and our assets. We need a modernisation plan that suits everyone.

This third way was originally supported by a few at the Council. More importantly this model will meet all the objectives of the Government for professional self-regulation and will also meet the membership's objectives to have a professional body that looks after our interests. It is our Society and we want to keep it that way.

Bluntly put, this was kicked into touch and was not given enough air to breathe. It was a flawed process that has failed time and time again to take full account of all concerned. A successful financial model for this third way could have been constructed if the same amount of energy went into it as it was expended in creating the shotgun wedding scenario.

Until now we have managed to keep the professional and regulatory roles side by side in harmony and this third way is the only way we can keep both sides in perfect harmony. Why have a shotgun wedding, when we can have blissful cohabitation?

The two separate boards can be formed along the following lines:

• We could have a professional board whose remit would be in line with most of the current Charter in maintaining the honour and promoting and safeguarding the interests of members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy and to advance science and the profession of pharmacy. (The new board would have no lay members or would have no more than one lay member to eight pharmacists.)

• There could also be a regulatory board whose remit would be to regulate all aspects of the profession of pharmacy in line with the Kennedy report. (The new board would have a professional majority of one, thus satisfying all the Government's agenda on professional self-regulation.)

• Professional and lay members of either board would not be able to sit on the other.

• All assets of the Society would be put under the control of the professional board.

The Council must devise workable structures along these lines to deliver two boards: one to give us, the members, the professional body that we deserve and which is capable of looking after our interests, and the other to meet the Government's agenda for a modern regulator.

Participants in the SGM have shown the Council the way and pointed it in the right direction. Now it is its turn to deliver.

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