|
Modernisation
The Register
Ramipril
Needle exchange
Letters to the Editor
|
Modernisation
Views taken into account but not accepted
From Mr D. N. Sharpe, FRPharmS
Together with about 350 fellow pharmacists I attended the special
general meeting summoned in accordance with the Society’s Byelaws in June.
That meeting rejected by an overwhelming majority the Council’s
proposed new Royal Charter. The Society has just published a revised
draft Royal Charter, and says in its discussion document that it has
taken account of views expressed, including those expressed at the SGM.
The discussion document asks about the revised charter: “Is it
now right?” The answer, sadly, is no.
The Byelaws, which are subject to consultation and to approval by the
Privy Council, disappear once replaced by regulations. Those very Byelaws
that permitted the SGM to be called are replaced by regulations made
by the Council itself. There is no requirement for the membership to
be consulted.
The membership of the Society can be extended beyond pharmacists by the
Council, subject only to approval by the Privy Council. Again, no requirement
for the membership to be consulted.
What of the Council that makes the regulations? A simple majority is
all that is required by this Charter, and 12 of the 29 members of the
Council are non-pharmacists.
Other changes? Well, the duty to safeguard and promote the interests
of members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy is not back.
It has been replaced by a duty to safeguard and promote the profession
itself. Not quite the same. This is also subject to the new qualification
that the duty is for the public benefit. Any benefit to the members is
incidental.
I was president of the Society many years ago. The office of president
was established under the Royal Charter. That has gone too.
Whoever prepared this revised draft Charter may have taken account of
the views expressed by members and others earlier this year, but they
have not accepted them.
David Sharpe
London NW11
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
I think it is important to clarify some of the points that
Mr Sharpe raises, which I hope will serve to reassure him about
the concerns he has expressed.
Both the Government and the Privy Council are seeking to reduce
Privy Council involvement in decisions where they feel it is no
longer appropriate. Although
appointment to the Privy Council is normally for life, only Ministers of the
government of the day participate in its operational work. Hence, it is government
ministers who take Privy Council decisions. It is unlikely that the Privy Council
will want to approve the whole range of changes to the Society’s regulations
or Byelaws in the future. This would certainly not preclude an opportunity
for members to comment on proposed changes.
Under the Council’s proposals, 17 out of 29 of the new Council would be
pharmacists, elected by the membership. Pharmacists would continue to be the
major influence on Society policy. There are no plans for non-pharmacists 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 but these would not become full members in
the same way as pharmacists. Such changes would be subject to Privy Council approval.
The Privy Council would expect the Society to seek members’ views first
and to submit the comments received with the proposal.
The Society promotes pharmacy’s contribution to health and aims to ensure
that the voice of the profession is heard wherever policy relevant to pharmacy
is made or implemented. However, it cannot represent the interests of any individual
member or group of members, nor can it promote the profession’s interest
if that is in conflict with the wider public benefit. This is not something new — the
revised draft Charter simply aims to make this long-standing position plain,
and to give the Society’s representational role greater clarity and credibility.
The revised draft Charter does in fact provide for appointment of Officers
of the Society, including the President. The number and titles of the Officers
are
not specified, to allow this to be altered if required to meet future needs.
For example, it has previously been suggested that it might be helpful to have
two vice-presidents, to reduce the burden on the president. At present, this
idea could not be progressed without a change to the Charter. |
Why all is not sweetness and light on Council
From Mr D. Simpson, FRPharmS
It is quite incorrect for Andrew
Burr to claim that the Council of the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society has been “working well together and
embracing the diverse experience and opinion round the table” (PJ,
October 25, p578). All is not sweetness and light. Furthermore, my view,
which was the platform on which I was elected to the Council, that the
Society’s role as a professional association should be fully preserved
and that the Society’s overall governing body should not be swamped
by lay people and technicians has certainly not been embraced.
To say, as Mr Burr does, that none of the “Save Our Society” Council
members pressed for a referendum on a new Charter is disingenuous. I
have asked, without being specific, for a means to be given to the members
of signifying their approval of the final form of any new Charter. In
any case, the latest debate in the Council was essentially on the form
of the draft that would be put out for consultation. The Council’s
consideration of the Society’s proposals for a new Charter has
yet to be completed.
Mr Burr suggests that the some of his fellow Council
members are having difficulty with the fundamental democratic decision-making
process. But if he really believed in such a process, surely he would
not be satisfied with another round of so-called consultation. He would
be urging that all the members have a final say on the charter via a
special general meeting or a referendum.
Douglas Simpson
Beckenham, Kent
| |
Due to pressure on space, the following comment from the October
Council meeting was not published in full in The Journal. — Editor
“DOUGLAS SIMPSON wished to support Nicholas Wood. When they talked about
big sea changes in the profession, it was important that the membership should
have some means of finally saying they were happy for Council to go ahead with
it. A referendum was mentioned at the special general meeting. The Charter
itself talked about special general meetings in themselves being called for big
sea
changes. Nicholas Wood was proposing to check the views of members before big
changes were made.”
And later in the debate: “ANDREW BURR agreed
with everything Marshall had said. Members at the special general meeting had
asked for a referendum. He knew they were not saying that, but he felt it would
be proper that the Council explicitly say why they had ruled a referendum out.
That needed to be communicated effectively. The reasons he saw they were not
going to go down that road were, first, time scale, but also because they had
already seen that it was a very complex issue. To simplify and say, ‘Do
you agree with this, yes or no?’ was a non-starter. Although he understood
the sentiments expressed at the special general meeting, in terms of the practical
way forward of dealing with the charter, he would support what Marshall said.
However, the communication exercise was important.” |
Referendum could show lack of support
From Mr S. I. Dajani, MRPharmS
Ashwin Tanna is right in his assertion that the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Council discussed not holding a referendum (PJ, 1 November,
p614), which, interestingly, Andrew
Burr claims was not raised by any
of the Save Our Society candidates (PJ, 25 October, p578).
As part of governance procedures I can only respect the majority decision
of my colleagues. However it has to be said that referendums are part
of many processes, such as in general elections and the balloting of
the contractors in relation to the new contract. Therefore I feel the
argument put forward not to hold the referendum is a red herring and
an excuse rather than a reason. Cynics could well believe that the fact
the Council chooses not to hold a referendum speaks volumes for the lack
of confidence in its support and, therefore, it can be argued that it
is not acting in the interests of the profession.
A referendum would show the support, or the lack of it, and would have
been a vital indicator because, frankly, after all the talking and the
consultations, if something poor or unpalatable is delivered to the majority
it is going to do untold damage to the morale of pharmacists and therefore
the profession.
Sultan Dajani
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
How can Council ignore the SGM?
From Ms A. M. Baker, MRPharmS
I find it hard to understand why anyone needs to send a petition to the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council to ask for a referendum
on the draft Charter (PJ, 25 October, p570). A unanimous motion was carried
at the special general meeting for a referendum — why, then, does
the Council have the power to ignore this?
There are, in my opinion, several good reasons for having the referendum.
Many more pharmacists will respond to a simple referendum than a general
request for comments. Comments take time and effort and require that
someone feels strongly about an issue. A “yes/no/no opinion” type
of referendum after the comments have been collated and a final draft
produced would ensure that all parties (including the Council and the
Save Our Society group) could be certain that members’ views had
been adequately canvassed. Comments about the “silent majority” would
no longer be relevant.
I think that for the vast majority of Council business, members are content
to let themselves be represented by those whom they voted on to the Council.
But this is a document that will affect all members, for the rest of
their working lives and beyond. It is not often that these momentous
documents are produced, and I believe strongly that, when they are, the
Council should be seen to be doing everything in its power to find out
and incorporate the views of the membership. To date, it has done so,
although seemingly a little reluctantly. There have been roadshows, a
consultation period, a redraft incorporating many of the suggested changes
and a further consultation period. All the Council has to do now, once
it has produced a final draft, is to hold a referendum, as requested
by the members at the SGM, to confirm that the final draft is satisfactory.
A referendum could do a lot of good, and help to restore the faith of
ordinary members in how the Society operates, and intends to operate
in the future.
Alison Baker
Dumfries
Issue of referendum not taken seriously
From Mr H. Argomandkhah, MRPharmS
In his letter (PJ, 25 October, p578) Andrew
Burr’s attempts to
justify the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council’s lack
of support for a referendum have failed to convince me that it has taken
the issue seriously. Together with the report
of the Council meeting held earlier in October (PJ, 11 October, pp521–6), it is clear
that the issue of the referendum was not on the agenda as an item with
its own merit. I can only presume the Council hoped that by sidelining
the issue, somehow it would go away.
In his letter Mr Burr rubbishes the petition as mere political posturing,
but fails to mention his own posturing, as he seeks re-election next
year. Surely this cannot be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Why does he or the Council not want to hold a referendum? Surely the
complexity of the issue in not the real problem, since the issues will
have to be explained in the documents accompanying the referendum. Could
the real reasons be the hidden agenda buried within the draft Charter
document, which members will not be able to decipher for themselves?
Based on the Council’s timetable we will soon be passing the point
of no return. Unless the membership wakes up to this fact, their wish
for a truly representative body for pharmacists will be lost for good.
Hassan Argomandkhah
Liverpool
| |
Ann Lewis, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
The Council did not in any way sideline the question of
a referendum. Having produced the revised draft Charter, it gave
careful consideration to the form that further consultation should
take. In the debate, the Council acknowledged the feeling behind
the special general meeting’s call for a referendum but concluded
that this would be an inadequate method of ascertaining pharmacists’ views
on the revised draft Charter. There is not a simple “Yes” or “No” question
to pose. A pharmacist who was unsure about one article in the draft
Charter could find him or herself having to vote “No” to
the whole draft. This would give the Council no information on
the particular point or points that had caused concern and, as
such,
would be of little help in informing decisions. Throughout the
extensive and wide-ranging consultation process on the Charter,
the Council
has sought to promote constructive feedback. It does not want to
restrict the consultation to any single question and is encouraging
comments on any aspect of the revised draft Charter. I hope that
many pharmacists will take the opportunity to send in their views. |
Considerable merit in Scotland going its own way
From Mr M. R. Hickey, MRPharmS
In the news item (PJ, 1 November, p603) reporting the latest Save Our
Society document you picked up on one interesting point in relation to
devolution.
If pharmacists in Scotland continue to be as let down by the various
draft Charters as many of us presently believe we are, there is nothing
to stop the members resident in Scotland from seeking their own new Charter.
To do so would simply bring them in line with many of the other Scottish
professional bodies. I understand a Scottish pharmaceutical body could
be regulated by any appropriate organisation. This might be Lambeth,
or equally it might be some other regulator, such as the Health Professions
Council.
There is considerable merit in Scotland going its own way. It is already
evident that the effects of devolution are causing the profession to
become significantly different from that practised in the other parts
of the United Kingdom. It is also becoming apparent that Lambeth is primarily
interested in working with the English Department of Health, this
London-centric focus is increasingly inhibiting Scottish pharmacists
from formulating Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.
In the event of the Scots seeking their own Charter, and this would essentially
mean the end of the Society as it has existed since 1843, attention would
have to given to ensuring that the Scottish members retained their share
of the assets that have been accrued over the past 160 years.
Far fetched? I don’t think so, the idea has been mentioned at every
meeting I have attended in Scotland this year, and increasingly so.
If the Council continues to fail to listen to what the pharmacists resident
in Scotland are saying then I would suggest that any forthcoming special
general meeting, or vote of no confidence in the senior members of Lambeth’s
staff and members of Council, might be the least of their problems.
Maurice Hickey
Forres, Morayshire
Apparent contradiction about decisions
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
Along with a large majority of the membership in responding to the “Fit
for the future” consultation, I opted for the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society to retain both its representative and its regulatory roles.
It is interesting to note that Andrew
Burr (PJ, 25 October, p578) acknowledges
that “representation” has now been dropped from the Society’s
vocabulary and curious that he asserts that this is not significant.
I would be fascinated to know how he justifies that assertion.
Curiouser still, he asserts that some members of the Council have difficulty
in accepting the fundamental democratic decision-making process (sic)
while simultaneously arguing himself that a referendum over the new Charter
should be denied the membership (may I still call us that, or are we
now merely registrants?). And this despite the unanimous support for
a referendum at the special general meeting in June of this year.
I wonder if the apparent contradiction here places Mr Burr in “a
little local difficulty”.
Graham Phillips
St Albans, Hertfordshire
|
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.