|
Modernisation
The Society
The Journal
Adrenal insufficiency
The profession
The register
Ramipril
Simvastatin
Letters to the Editor
|
Modernisation
Proposed Charter revision is unacceptable
From Mr J. Ferguson, FRPharmS
It was good to have confirmation from the Secretary
and Registrar (PJ,
22 November, p714) that, under its current Charter, the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society can indeed represent the interests of a group or section of pharmacists
in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy.
How misleading, therefore, and how indicative of the Council’s
future intentions, was the section about the Society’s Objects
that was published, along with the proposed revised Charter, in the 18
October issue? When referring to the specific Object about promoting
the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession, it
was stated: “The wording has been changed slightly . ... This
is to remove an ambiguity that has caused considerable confusion over
the years. It makes clear the fact that the Society cannot represent
or champion the interests of a ... group of members but must look to
the interests of the profession as a whole in all its diversity. The
revised Object is designed to make this long standing position plain
and unambiguous.”
We now know that the position under the current Object is not ambiguous
and the long-standing position is that the Society can promote the interests
of a section of the membership, subject to their being no conflict with
the public interest.
The question that has been avoided is whether this would remain the position
if the current proposed wording, which is by no means a slight change
from the present, were approved. The new Object would permit the Society
to “promote the ... interests of the profession of pharmacy”.
And it is clear from the item in the PJ that the intention of the Council
is to interpret this to mean the interests of the profession as a whole.
That is why the proposed revision is unacceptable and must be rewritten
if the representational role of the Society is not to be greatly reduced
in the future.
Incidentally, I have never heard anyone seriously suggesting that the
Society could promote the interests of one sector of the profession against
another. There have been differences of opinion between sectors in the
past. In those circumstances, it was the role of the Society to find
a solution that best served the interests of both the public and the
profession.
John Ferguson
Haywards Heath, West Sussex
| |
PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, replies:
As Ann Lewis explained (PJ, 22 November, p714), the Society can, does and will
promote the contribution made by a particular sector of the profession
or undertake work which is of greatest benefit in one sector, where
this is consistent with the wider public interest and with the
interests of the profession as a whole. This is because the Society
exists
to serve the public and the profession as a whole. The Objects
in the draft Charter are designed to reflect this long-standing
position.
The very fact that this is still being debated underlines the reality
that the current wording of Object 3 can be — and often is — misinterpreted.
As Mr Ferguson correctly points out, it is the role of the Society’s
Council to find solutions that best serve the interests of both public and
profession. |
A lack of consistency
From Mr D. Simpson, FRPharmS
Your readers may recall that my
letter published on 8 November (p642)
rebutted a claim by Andrew Burr that “Save Our Society” Council
members, of which I am one, had not called, at the October meeting, for
a referendum on the new Charter. Mr Burr was claiming that we had not
supported a motion passed at the special general meeting on 1 June. He
implied a certain lack of consistency.
Under the circumstances, it seems reasonable to examine Mr Burr’s
record. He attended and spoke at the SGM. The motion that a referendum
be held was put by the President and passed “unanimously” (PJ,
7 June, p807). So Mr Burr himself might be guilty of inconsistency. However,
let us give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he slipped
out when the vote was taken.
But that still leaves the little matter of the chartered Objects of the
Society.
The SGM considered a motion to the effect that the Object in the current
Charter of maintaining the honour and safeguarding and promoting the
interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy
should be retained. Mr Burr, according to your report, said that dropping
the Object from the Charter would not get through the Council. The members,
he said, had given a resounding message that they wanted the Object to
remain in the Charter. He asked the meeting to support
the motion (PJ,
7 June, p807). But when we get to the October Council meeting, Mr Burr
said that going back to the current wording would be a catastrophic
step backwards (PJ, 11 October, p522) You cannot really get much more inconsistent
than that!
Douglas Simpson
Beckenham, Kent
Absolute bunkum
From Mr M. R. Hickey, MRPharmS
I was interested to read in “The Society” section (PJ,
November 15, p691) that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Scottish
Executive “has
welcomed the changes introduced to the revised draft Royal Charter”.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to when this happened. It certainly
was not at either of the recent executive meetings I attended. I seem
to remember phrases like “not being listened to” and “having
to take things on trust” being made by more than one person.
The feelings expressed were almost without exception ones of disquiet,
distrust and worry. Indeed the four bullet points with which you follow
your initial paragraph can hardly be described as “welcoming”.
I also notice that your report is based on a press release made, presumably
from Lambeth, stating that the Scottish Executive welcomed the new draft
Charter. I normally receive press releases three times: first as a member
of the Scottish Executive, second as a branch public relations officer
and third through the Scottish branch network and from York Place. I
have yet to be sent a copy of this misleading one. I find it disquieting
that I found out about it when a journalist telephoned me to ask me for
my comments.
This press release is absolute bunkum, and I suggest it must have been
written by someone who was not present at the meetings. If this is the
standard of service the members resident in Scotland can now expect,
in the wake of the resignation of the significant members of staff at
York Place, and now that the Scottish Department is being run on a part-time
basis from another country, then it does not bode well for the future.
Maurice Hickey
Forres,
Moray
| |
DAVID THOMSON, chairman of the Scottish Executive, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, replies:
A decision by committee will always be a consensus
of opinion and be unlikely to accommodate all individuals’ views. |
Why is Council opposed to democracy?
From Mr J. S. Daffu, MRPharmS
It is with great regret, and because of my disappointment with the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council, that I have decided to
air my views about what is happening to my Society in the guise of working
in
the best interest of the profession.
The changes proposed to the Charter will not only give greater powers
to the Council but also allow it to press ahead with any proposals it
wishes to pursue in this guise, with complete disregard to the feelings
of the membership. Giving the Council these powers to have the final
say on regulation and Byelaws, will not only be an imposition but a total
erosion of the democratic rights of the membership.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society only exists because of the pharmacist
members, who are proud to be part of this honourable profession. To alter
the Object of the Charter from “the interest of the members” to “the
interests of the profession”, I believe is totally unacceptable
and a backward step while holding the membership to ransom. By using
the term “profession” it would be easy for the Council to
carry forward any motions detrimental to the pharmacist members but dressed
up as being good for the profession. I believe, as most of the membership
do, that these powers may be open to abuse by a future Council not entirely
made up of pharmacists, at the same time as not having any real direct
accountability to the pharmacist members.
The other area that causes concern is that the Council is apparently
prepared to give away control of the assets of the Society, which have
been accumulated over the past 160 years by members. These assets belong
to members and should be preserved for sole benefit of the future generations
of members and should not be in anyway endangered by this or any future
Council.
Having been a member for nearly 21 years I believe that at last, after
all the apathy I have felt over the years, the time has come for me to
act before it is too late. I am not the only member aggrieved about the
current situation but believe that the Council is disregarding members’ democratic
rights. Why is the Council so opposed to democracy and to members’ demands
for a referendum on the new Charter? I urge all the previously apathetic
members like me to support
the petition currently being run by Hassan
Argomandkhah on behalf of the Save Our Society campaign (PJ, 25 October,
p570), compelling the Council to hold a referendum, and I ask the Council
not to ignore the members’ democratic rights.
J. S. Daffu
Nottingham
| |
PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, replies:
Mr Daffu has a number of opinions that may or may
not be shared by others but it may be helpful to clarify a couple
of points of fact.
First, the approval of regulations: both the Government and the
Privy Council are seeking to reduce their involvement in decisions
where they feel it is no
longer appropriate. It is also important to remember that the Council makes
regulations under legislation as well as under the Charter and
we would expect some of the
statutory powers to make regulations to be subject to official approval. The
Council is not seeking to remove the need for approval in all cases but needs
to respond to the Privy Council’s wish to reduce its involvement in the
Society’s internal affairs. This will certainly not preclude consultation
with members.
Secondly, there would be no change in the ownership of the assets, which belong
to the Society as a corporate body. It is now normal practice for charters
to include provision for winding up procedures although it is obviously not
intended
that the Society should be wound up. Without this, the Society would be in
the position of having to approach the court for directions on winding up,
and could
conceivably find its assets treated as bona vacantia (passing to the Crown).
This is because the current Charter does not address this point. The assets
could not be distributed among the members unless this was specified in the
Charter,
and it is inconceivable that the Privy Council would grant such a provision.
The new article, unlike the current Charter, would safeguard any residual assets,
on winding up, for purposes similar to those in the Charter objects. It therefore
gives greater protection to the assets than does the current Charter. |
Referendum not needed
From Mr A. J. Harris, MRPharmS
I fully agree with the opinions expressed by Alan
Nathan (PJ, 15 November,
p676). Members must use their annual vote and then leave decisions, after
consultation, to the elected Council. The branch representatives meeting,
ably chaired by Marshall Davies, helped in this way, but a referendum
is not needed.
Anthony Harris
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
Last chance to save the Society
From Mr A. R. White, MRPharmS
This is quite simply a plea to all pharmacists to stand up and be counted.
I am an “ordinary” pharmacist; I do not belong to any of
the organised factions in the debate on the proposed new Charter and,
as I am nearing the end of my time as a working pharmacist, the final
outcome will not drastically affect my career. So why am I writing to
The Journal for the first time?
It is because I am convinced that if the current proposals by Council
for the new Charter (and within it the structure of a new Council) are
not radically changed, then our Society will be ruined irretrievably.
I do not pretend to understand all the details. Unfortunately, to a large
extent, this is because they have not been explained to us. Indeed, often
we have been told that some desired aim has been achieved (or conversely
an undesirable situation avoided) without explaining how this has come
about. The preface to the revised draft Charter is an example. This says
that it achieves “the proper balance between the Society’s
regulatory and professional roles”. I cannot find anything in the
document that justifies this statement.
Furthermore the article by Marcus Longley (PJ, 8 November, pp657–9)
clearly shows that there is, as yet, no official decision on how the
Society (via an appropriate Council structure) is going to be run. If
this is so, how can we agree to the composition given in Article 7 of
the new draft?
Linda Stone is reported
as saying that Council is not elected to represent
the profession (or individuals within it) but to lead the profession
(PJ, 11 October, p522). This, to me, sounds like “we are right
and, if you disagree with us, you are wrong”. So much for democracy!
I have always found that it is the person who really understands a topic
who can best explain it. The Council (as a collective body) certainly
has not explained its reasoning to me and I am far from convinced that
they really understand the situation.
So, finally, my plea. If other pharmacists, too, are not convinced that
our Council (or at least the majority of them) has got the new Charter
absolutely right, then they should ask for a referendum
of all members by writing to Hassan Argomandkhah, as shown in the news item (PJ, 25
October, p570), by 1 December.
Alan White
Gravesend, Kent
| |
PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, replies:
Over the past year, the Society has produced numerous
press articles to help communicate the issues relating to the current
reform programme. In addition, there has been a roadshow in each
region, along with some 40 dedicated branch meetings to give all
members the opportunity to find out more about these admittedly
complex matters.
The articles (and PDF 120K)
by Marcus Longley (PJ,
8 and 15 November) were aimed
at promoting debate on the structures that will be needed to support
and advise the Council
in the future, not on the structure of the Council itself. It would not be
appropriate to define these structures in the Charter since they
are likely to evolve and
change: there have been many different committee structures during the life
of the current Charter.
It has been suggested that the Charter could protect the Council’s composition
from change. In fact, keeping the current Council composition is not an option — the
Government has made this clear and has imposed change on other professions.
Where change has been imposed, the result has been a Council with a professional
majority
of one. By contrast, the Council has proposed a significant majority of pharmacists,
all elected by the membership. Pharmacists would continue to have the major
influence on Society policy.
If the new Council structure were not defined in the Charter, it would be set
out in legislation. The initiative for any future change in this central element
of the Society’s constitution would then rest entirely with the Government
and not with the Society. |
No change in current Charter needed
From Mrs R. A. Chatterji, MRPharmS
I have been following the various discussions on modernisation for
some time. I do not agree with the view that there is a need to change
the
current Charter. However, there are changes required but these are in
the elected members of Council: they appear self-satisfied, the Officers
have pretensions that they know best, and the wastage of Society resources
on worthless ideas and pursuits suggests to me that they should go.
The Society is neither meant to be a champion of public good nor an appendage
of the Government, paid for by the members. The Charter as it is proposed
is nothing but finally handing over the assets of the members to serve
the Government function of regulation.
I reject the proposal for a new Charter for the Society for the following
reasons:
1. The Society’s claim to be self-regulatory is merely a delusion.
No government will ever allow this Society or any other body to act as
a regulatory body in a sensitive area like the health care of the public.
Therefore, the function of the Council will be entirely guided by the
rules and regulations brought out by the Government. The Council is wasting
Society resources in doing the job of the Government. The only reason
for such enthusiasm among certain members of the Council could be their
own political and public power aims.
2. The President and certain other Council members’ claim that
the Society has not represented the interests of the members in the past
and will not be able to do so in future, is a clear admission of failure
of the elected members of the Council in the past as well as the present.
Such admissions are to be viewed as a dereliction of duty. The Society
is not a temple or church and its Council members are not some ordained
persons; they are all pharmacists. Therefore instead of trying to acquire
an air of lofty public duty they must concentrate all their energies
in actively promoting the members’ interests.
3. The Society’s claim to champion public interest is complete
nonsense since the Government is there to look after the public interest
and there are numerous other bodies and groups who are doing the job
with great success.
4. The claim of the President that the Charter document is complex, and
ordinary member may have difficulty in understanding each point, shows
that, first, the elected members somehow think that they are more intelligent
and knowledgeable than the members who elected them. Secondly, the Society
and the Council have either failed fully to inform the members about
the various points of the proposed Charter or have deliberately kept
the matter vague for reasons known to them. The Society has ignored simple
methods of consulting, as advised by the members, and opted for more
expensive and complicated methods like the so-called roadshows, with
poor results.
5. The elected members of the Council have deliberately ignored various
alternative ideas and proposals with specious arguments and excuses.
The most ridiculous of the many reasons provided is that if the Society
does not act then the Government will act. In other words the Society
somehow can stop the Government from acting. It should be understood
that the Government will act irrespective of the enthusiasm displayed
by certain members. But we live in a civilised, democratic country and
there are provisions to influence Government thinking.
Once the general view of the members on the proposed Charter is known
it will be useful if a vote of no confidence is brought in order to do
the most urgently required act — wholesale clearance of the elected
members of Council.
R. A. Chatterji
Liverpool
A tale of two bodies
From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS
As any pharmacist member of the Institute of Directors will know, the
IOD is also going through a process where it is applying for a brand
new Royal Charter. Bearing in mind the mess that the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society has got itself into, the comparisons between the process that
is being undertaken by the IOD and the Society are worth exploring.
The IOD process has taken five years, there have been numerous timely
consultations with members, several iterations and the IOD has even prepared
a helpful website which
deals with the issues in an open and frank manner. All of this ultimately
led to the
draft proposal being accepted unanimously by the full IOD Council two
whole years ago — no mean feat bearing in mind that it has 80 members
of Council. Subject to further legal drafting, the draft proposal was
then put to the Privy Council and it has agreed that the new draft Charter
would be acceptable to it. The IOD is now turning to the membership for
their final approval and a special general meeting has been called for
early December. The SGM will also allow proxy votes and this will serve
to open up the SGM process, ostensibly turning the exercise into a wide
scale referendum. The proxy votes will be counted by the independent
Electoral Reform Society. No lame excuses about the difficulties of referendums
on complicated issues have been offered to IOD members — just a
simple vote for or against the new
Charter.
I am led to believe by the IOD Secretary that a top priority for the
institute was that its “modernisation” process needed to
be fully compliant with the principles of good corporate governance.
There is no doubt that this process has come at a cost to the institute.
However, the dividend is that it would appear that the exemplary conduct
of the IOD’s modernisation process has engendered so much trust
and support among IOD members that, to date, it has managed to attract
only one letter of dissension.
In contrast the Society’s process has not only plunged the Society
into the biggest constitutional crisis in its entire 160-year history,
but has also led the way to substantial and sustained opposition from
the membership of the Society, inevitably leading to publicity which
cannot be in the interests of the Society or the profession or the members
it is supposed to serve. If the Society in its future form wants to gain
respect as a thoroughly modern regulator, then it must first gain respect
as a thoroughly exemplary moderniser. To achieve this, it must embrace
a much more open and transparent process, akin to the one followed by
the IOD.
There is no doubt that the Council has been led into a situation that
no member of Council must enjoy; even the most ardent supporters of the
existing Society plan must wince with embarrassment at the catalogue
of excuses that emanates weekly from Lambeth in The Journal’s letters
pages. It is still not too late, however, for the Council to be courageous
and to act on the concerns, the hopes and the aspirations of the membership.
Let us hope that it does so.
Mark Koziol
Birmingham
| |
PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, replies:
The IOD and the Society are not comparable organisations.
The IOD is a voluntary body, governed solely by its Charter.
The Society is a body with statutory membership, governed by both
legislation
and Charter. In view of the changes being made by Parliament
to the legislation governing health professions, we have not had
the
time available to us that the IOD has had. Nevertheless, we have
engaged in wide-ranging consultation to ensure that, between
them, the Charter and legislation form a robust framework that
will secure
the broad remit of the Society for the future, reinforce the
key roles of professional leadership and development, and ensure
that
the Society is fully equipped as an integrated professional and
regulatory body. |
|
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.