|
Consultants
Fluoridation
CPD
The Society
Modernisation
Workforce census
Letters to the Editor
|
Modernisation
An unfair press?
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
Apparently the Royal Pharmaceutical Society feels it does not get a fair
press. Recent articles in various pharmacy titles feature the President
demanding “editorial balance and the separation of fact from opinion”.
Behind Lambeth’s complaint lies the uncomfortable truth — that
it is the membership and the wider Council who have been denied a fair
hearing. All attempts to halt the progress of the modernisation steering
group steamroller have been squashed flat by judicious reference to the
opinion of the MSG’s legal adviser Robert Bulling, a charter expert.
(There must be concern about a potential conflict of interests since,
as an independent legal adviser, Mr Bulling is also a full and formal
member of the MSG.) But what is not in doubt is that Mr Bulling’s
legal opinion has been wheeled out to deny other approaches to modernisation
such as the two board model supported by the Save Our Society campaign.
The extent to which justice may not have been done is made painfully
clear in a recent article by an equally eminent legal expert Michael
Scott (C&D, 16 August, p14, PDF (55K)).
Mr Scott, the Save Our Society campaign’s legal adviser, reveals
how skewed the modernisation debate has been and to what extent the Society’s
representational role has been set aside in favour of a purely regulatory
role — and all of this hidden in the Trojan Horse of charitable
status.
Mr Scott’s expert opinion adds gravitas to what many of us have
been saying throughout, which is that the proposed new charter has been
drafted primarily to achieve charitable status and does not give due
weight to representational functions. I therefore believe it is a travesty.
He makes it clear that there is really no need for a new charter since
the existing one can be updated, that the likelihood of the Government
bogeyman overwriting our existing charter is remote and that there is
no reason to lose representation as a key charter object. Finally, a
two-board model would be perfectly acceptable.
Despite the outcome of the special general meeting, the Council now appears
to be backtracking on its promise to genuinely represent the membership
and its publicly stated commitment to take on board our concerns. No
meeting has been arranged with those who called the SGM, and neither
has Mr Scott been invited to address the Council.
An unfair press? Hardly!
Graham Phillips
St Albans,
Hertfordshire
|
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.