Council's response to branch resolutions
Comments have been received to suggest that the Council’s response
to a resolution of the branch representatives’ meeting made on
the motion of the West Metropolitan branch might have been worded in
such a way as to be unclear. To clarify the Council’s response,
the motion/resolution and response are repeated below, with extra wording
added in bold italics to remove any possible ambiguity.
Motion/Resolution That the Society should observe the modernisation
principles agreed by the YPG [Young Pharmacists Group], NPA [National
Pharmaceutical Association] and PSNC [Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee] in any changes it recommends to the structure of the Society.
The branch’s explanatory paragraph The agreed principles are that:
(a) the Society’s professional representative roles must be properly
accommodated in a reformed structure and be distinguished from and given
equal prominence to the functions of a modern regulator. (Moreover, the
structure of the Society’s governing body must be such to allow
for independent consideration of Government policies that may impact
adversely upon the profession. The Society must be sufficiently independent
of Government to be able, if necessary, to oppose Government policies
affecting non-regulatory issues.); (b) lay members of Council must not
become involved in determining policy in respect of representation on
professional issues; (c) the number of pharmacists on the governing body
should be similar to the number on the current Council to adequately
represent the broad spectrum of interests across the profession; (d)
the Society must be accountable to its pharmacist members for promoting
the profession, and for the development of professional roles and opportunities.
At the same time it must be accountable to pharmacists, Government and
the public for the regulation of the profession; (e) the Society has
a duty to safeguard and promote the interests of its members.
Council response The Council recognises the important concerns voiced
within the profession on aspects of its reform programme. In response,
the Council reaffirms that it has no intention of giving up or of weakening
the Society’s functions of leading, developing and acting to promote
the profession of pharmacy. The aim is for the Society to retain its
integrated functions and for it to be equally effective both as a regulator
and as a professional body.
So far, external timetables have meant that the emphasis has been on
the Society’s regulatory functions. But there is also an excellent
opportunity to refocus and improve the Society’s professional functions.
There is more that can be done to help pharmacists deliver quality in
their practice, to develop the profession of pharmacy, and to raise pharmacy’s
profile by contributing to wider policy debates and advising on pharmaceutical
issues.
The contribution of lay members to the Council’s agenda should
help ensure that Society policy is robust and in touch with what matters
to patients and the public. Lay people can also be powerful advocates
for pharmacy, strengthening the profession’s voice and helping
us to safeguard public confidence and trust. Nevertheless, it would be
feasible and appropriate for work on some issues within the Council’s
policy framework to be taken forward by groups comprised mostly or entirely
of pharmacists.
The Society’s advocacy role involves bringing influence to bear
on any issue — regulatory or professional — that affects
the profession’s ability to deliver a safe, high quality service.
This includes, when necessary, opposing government policy. The Society
is independent of government and will remain so. The Society cannot represent
pharmacists’ individual or commercial interests, and cannot act
in conflict with the public interest. However, the Society’s view
of the public interest need not always coincide with that of the government
of the day. This is the situation now — reform will not change
this.
The Society serves both public and profession and its arrangements for
accountability reflect this. The public is represented by Parliament,
and the Society is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of its
regulatory functions. Accountability to pharmacists is expressed primarily
through the election of pharmacists to the Council.
The Council has reaffirmed its commitment to the Society’s future
as the integrated professional and regulatory body for pharmacy. If these
roles are to be discharged effectively and credibly, the Society must
have one governing body, accountable for all its functions, with a majority
of pharmacists elected by the membership. Two other models for
the overall governance of the Society were appraised by the Council on 2 July 2003,
alongside the existing policy for a reformed Council. These were the “two
board” model proposed at the SGM and a model whereby the Council
delegated authority for all regulatory functions to an autonomous board.
The Council concluded that these options would not produce the type of
organisation we want to see: a credible, efficient and effective professional
and regulatory body for pharmacy. The Council’s proposal
of a single, overall governing body that should be accountable for all
the Society’s
functions was reaffirmed but it was recognised that more work needs to
be done to describe how the professional leadership and development functions
could be discharged within this proposal.
The Council is committed to finding better ways to engage the profession
and others much more in the Society’s work, to help develop the
profession and to ensure that decisions are properly informed by professional
expertise. Further work is being taken forward as a priority to describe
a credible and appropriate structure associated with the governing Council,
which could support the full range of the Society’s functions and
fulfil the assessment criteria developed by the Council. This will be
a vital strand of work to ensure that the future Society will fulfil
its responsibilities to the profession and to the public, and that pharmacy
will continue to develop its contribution to health and health care
Council statement: Response to resolutions
A member of the Society raised some serious
concerns during the public discussion session on modernisation
at British Pharmaceutical
Conference.
The concerns were that the Council’s response to a resolution
of the branch representatives’ meeting made on the motion
of the West Metropolitan branch had been changed between the
Council agreeing the response and its publication in The
Pharmaceutical Journal. It was also suggested that the re-drafted response went
further than had been agreed by Council. This was a serious complaint
and a full and thorough investigation was undertaken.
The investigation was undertaken by David Pruce, Director of
Practice and Quality Improvement, and the findings were presented
to Council
on 30 September. The findings were fully accepted and endorsed
by the Council. The conclusion was that Council had indeed instructed
staff to make a number of changes to the response to the West Metropolitan
branch motion and that the response should then be published. This
was accurately reported in The Pharmaceutical Journal’s report
of the August Council meeting, where it was reported: “The
Council gave its general approval to a document setting out its response
to the motions carried at the branch representatives’ meeting
in May. Once various points raised by Council members have been taken
into account, the response will be submitted to the branches and
published in The Journal.” The Council agreed that staff had
acted entirely properly and had faithfully carried out Council’s
instructions.
The Council recognised that part of the response to the West Metropolitan
branch motion could be open to misinterpretation. The motion and
the Council response will therefore be reissued with clarification. |
|
