|
Concordance
The Profession
Remuneration
Consultants
Modernisation
Workforce census
SOPs
Specials
The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Modernisation
Make your views known
From Mr A. Tanna, FRPharmS
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has spent a lot of time
thinking through the implications for pharmacy of the modernisation of
health professional regulation and strengthening its professional leadership
role by developing a new Royal Charter, since retaining the status quo
is not an option. Later this year the Government plans to publish the
regulatory legislation governing the Society, in the form of a draft
Section 60 Order. If the Society wishes to retain the benefits of chartered
status, it needs to ensure that any new Charter is compatible with the
Section 60 Order, otherwise the Charter will be overshadowed by the legislation.
At this year’s British Pharmaceutical Conference, it was explicitly
stated that the Society’s Council would revisit the objects in
the draft charter following feedback from members over the summer. The
omission of the third object in the existing Charter was one of the main
anxieties raised in the consultation. (“To maintain the honour
and promote and safeguard the interest of members in their exercise of
the profession of pharmacy.”)
It was originally proposed by the Society that this particular object
should be relegated to a power in the new Charter. However, this option
proved to be very unpopular with the members and played a significant
part in the debate at the special general meeting in June.
Members resolved that the Society’s Charter should retain the object
without qualification — carried unanimously by those present at
the meeting.
Following the SGM, the Council issued a statement acknowledging the strong
support expressed by the members for this object and saying that it would
take this fully into account when considering the new Charter. It was
anticipated the Council would address those concerns by revising the
objects in the draft Charter to give greater prominence to the Society’s
professional leadership and development role. At the June Council meeting,
the Council also decided that it would not pursue charitable status for
the present. But the possibility of charitable status still stands for
some future time and, therefore, will not be closed off entirely.
At the September Council meeting, the revised draft Charter was presented
to the Council members for discussion. Regrettably, there is no explicit
statement in this revised Charter that states its prime object is to
act in the interest of its members. I had my reservations concerning
this and other sections of the revised draft Charter and I, therefore,
with some of my colleagues voted against it.
Section 2 of the revised draft Charter states: “The objects of
the Society (hereinafter referred to as “the objects”) shall
be for the public benefit:” Although sub-section 3 states “To
safeguard, maintain the honour, and promote the effectiveness and interests
of the profession of pharmacy” and although it may look the same
as Article 4 in the old Charter, it is not. And it is not the same as
the membership decided at the SGM.
Since this object does not state explicitly that it is in the interest
of its members, it would be compatible with charitable status if any
future Council desired to seek it.
It seems to me that the Council is turning the Society into a regulator — with
the option of seeking charitable status in the future — at the
expense of its professional function. It is my understanding that Object
4 of the existing Charter, if reinstated in the revised draft Charter,
would be compatible with the Section 60 Order.
The Council is now seeking the views of the membership of the revised
draft Charter. It is therefore in your interest to feed your views to
the Society and how you feel about these changes.
Ashwin Tanna
Member of Council,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Not holding a referendum is not an option
From Mr H. Argomandkhah, MRPharmS
At the special general meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in
June, a motion that the Council should hold a referendum
of the membership to establish the level of support for any proposed new Charter was carried
unanimously (PJ, 7 June, p807). However this week’s report of the
Council meeting in October 2003 dismisses the referendum out of hand.
From the report (PJ, 11 October, pp521–523), Marshall Davies said
that some of the developments that would take place during the next 20
to 30 years would be beyond members’ comprehension today. In addition
Dr Gill Hawksworth said that “the Council does not want to restrict
this consultation to any single question”, and Andrew Burr saw
other reasons to rule out a referendum as the “time scale and the
complexity of the issue.’’
If this is not treating the membership with contempt, I do not know what
is. The membership is made up of highly intelligent and qualified pharmacists,
many of whom are better qualified than the current Council. If the Council
believes that we may not understand these complex issues, then it has
admitted its failure to explain these to us in easily digestible language.
As for the timescale, again it is the Council that has been in charge
of that and after the SGM of 1 June it knew that the members had unanimously
voted for a referendum and it must build that into its time scale. More
importantly, at the SGM, immediately before the vote was taken, I repeated
the members’ demand: “Hassan Argomandkhah said that the Council
needed to go back to the drawing board, produce a draft Charter that
it broadly supported, then seek
the members’ comments and then
hold a referendum. That was the order.’’ (PJ, 7 June, p807).
The referendum comes after the Council has agreed the final document.
So far it has produced a revised draft Charter and is seeking the members’ comments,
what is left is to hold a referendum after they have finalised the document
in December. Not holding a referendum is simply not an option because
you are not sure of the outcome. A proper referendum will have its own
explanatory notes and balanced “yes” and “no” campaigns.
The issue here is more fundamental than whether I or any other member
supports or rejects the new Charter; the fundamental issue is about erosion
of our democratic rights as ordinary members of the Society.
I, and many other so-called ordinary members, will not be prepared to
stand on the side while our Council deliberately casts aside our democratic
rights and ignores our wishes through its own failures.
Hassan Argomandkhah
Halewood, Liverpool
Representation fails to appear once
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
In the unattributed “Fit for the future” paper (PDF 150K) on professional
leadership and development of our profession, (PJ, 27 September, insert)
the word “representation” fails to appear once. Is this significant?
Graham Phillips
St Albans, Hertfordshire |
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.