Revised draft charter makes Council too powerful, say SOS campaigners
Too much power will be held by the reconstituted Council of the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society under the revised draft Royal Charter issued for
consultation by the Society last month (PJ, October 18, p561 and
pull-out section (PDF 100K)),
says an alliance of pharmacists formed earlier in the year under the
banner “Save our society”.
SOS campaigners have drafted an eight-point paper opposing the revised
draft Charter |
Central to a number of the SOS campaign’s concerns over the revised
draft is what it sees as strengthening of the Council’s hold, and
dilution of members’ influence, over the professional body. SOS
campaigners believe that the views
expressed by members at a special
general meeting in June (PJ, June 7, p802) are being given little weight.
Specific concerns are proposals to reduce the majority needed at special
general meetings to approve Charter changes to a two-thirds majority,
to give the Government power to change the Council at will [which the
Society says it already has] and to remove Privy Council oversight of
Society regulations.
SOS campaigners are also worried by the replacement of the current Charter
object to maintain the honour and safeguard the interests of members
of the Society with one directed towards the profession of pharmacy generally.
They say that the revised draft Charter does not define the profession,
so anyone working in pharmacy could claim that the Society should promote
their interests. Further, they fear legal action to prevent the Society
exclusively representing pharmacists’ interests.
“The effect of this draft proposal would be to render the Society virtually
powerless to pursue the interest of pharmacists,” they say. “At
the SGM, members voted virtually unanimously to leave the existing object
as it is — the Society appears to be disregarding this firmly stated
view.”
Another area of concern to the SOS campaign is the proposed new power
of the Society’s Council to make regulations without Privy Council
approval. This, they say, gives the Council power to change the Society’s
rules as it pleases even if unsupported by members. The SOS campaign
also warns that there is a real chance that pharmacists in Scotland might
seek a separate Royal Charter if the revised draft Charter goes ahead.
Rather than strengthening and empowering the Society’s Scottish
Department, the SOS campaign’s view is that the proposals downgrade
it to a subsidiary office when Scottish members want it to have policy-making
powers.
Commenting on the SOS views, the Society’s President Dr Gill Hawksworth
said that it was strange to hear an argument that a two-thirds majority
at an SGM might be insufficient to carry a decision.
On the interests of the profession, she said: “We have taken action
in the past that has been in pharmacists’ interests or has benefited
a particular sector of the profession, but those actions have been taken
because they were also in the wider public interest. Our future actions
would be determined on the same basis.”
She explained that the revised draft Charter did not define the profession
of pharmacy because it needs to be to be enabling and flexible to empower
the Society to fulfil its remit for the next 25–30 years. “There
are no plans for technicians, or other groups, to become members of the
Society. The revised draft Charter would make it possible for different
categories of membership to be created in the future. This could potentially
include some form of associate membership which could be extended to
technicians and perhaps others, subject to Privy Council approval.”
She said calls from the earlier Charter consultation for Privy Council
controls over the Society’s Council to be maintained stood alongside
calls for the Society to be freed from government interference. “This
seems contradictory because, while appointment to the Privy Council is
normally for life, only ministers of the government of the day participate
in its policy and operational work. Hence, it is government ministers,
advised by civil servants, who take Privy Council decisions.” She
added that it was likely that the Privy Council would want a reduced
involvement in the Society’s affairs. This would not preclude opportunities
for members to comment on proposed changes.
On the question of dissolution, Dr Hawksworth said: “Current legislation
actually prohibits the abolition of the Society, and it is unthinkable
that any government could requisition the assets of an autonomous chartered
body. In fact, this is precisely the sort of situation that the new strengthened
Charter can prevent.”
Lastly, she said that it is simply not the case that the revised draft
Charter would weaken the Society’s ability to properly reflect
devolution in its structures and its decision making. “The Welsh
Executive has already given its full support to the revised draft Charter,
which places a new mandatory responsibility on the Council to ensure
that there are appropriate structures in Scotland and Wales to reflect
the full implications of devolution, as it is now and as it evolves in
the future.” |
