|
Modernisation
The Society
The Journal
Adrenal insufficiency
The profession
The register
Ramipril
Simvastatin
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Lambeth lacks transparency
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
In a recent open letter (PJ, 8 November, p635) to the President
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society I, and a number of colleagues who
support the Save Our Society campaign, expressed our
concern that the Society, in a number of important respects, is in breach
of the principles laid down by the Government’s Better Regulation
Task Force, which sets out the five guiding principles within which a
modern regulator should act (www.brtf.gov.uk).
Under one of the principles — transparency — the document
states:
• Policy objectives, including the need for regulation, should be clearly
defined and effectively communicated to all interested parties
• Effective consultation must take place before proposals are developed,
to ensure that stakeholders’ views and expertise are taken into
account
• Stakeholders should be given at least 12 weeks, and sufficient information
to respond to consultation documents
• Regulations should be clear and simple, and guidance, in plain language,
should be issued 12 weeks before the regulations take effect
Within the terms of the Society’s current Charter, substantive
changes such as changes to the nature of the membership and the Byelaws
must be approved by a substantial majority (75 per cent) of the members
present at a special general meeting.
In a letter (ibid, p642), David
Sharpe, a past-president of the Society
points out that, within the terms of the proposed new draft charter,
this and other important elements of membership democracy are lost.
Ann Lewis, the Society’s Secretary and Registrar, in her contemporaneous
reply states that “this would certainly not preclude an opportunity
for members to comment on proposed changes”. There is, of course,
a massive difference between the absolute right, enshrined in the current
Charter, for the members of the profession to vote democratically upon
substantive changes following a balanced debate and the “opportunity
to comment”.
Surely, in following the “better regulation” principles the
duty of the Secretary and Registrar is to make clear to the membership
the effects of the proposed changes, not to attempt to bury them by adding
obfuscation and spin.
Clearly, the SOS campaign’s concern for democracy is well founded.
Graham Phillips
St Alban’s,
Hertfordshire
End to Society's representative role
From Mr A. C. Gush, MRPharmS
Professor Michael Schofield’s reply to Graham Phillips in last
week’s PJ (22 November, p712) is significant, not so much for what
it says as for what is left out.
Professor Schofield deftly side-steps all of Mr Phillips’s points
because, as he says, he represents the public interest, having no interest
in either the Society or pharmacists per se. Of course, that is an entirely
respectable position to take — as a member of the Council of a
regulatory (not representative) body. It is interesting to note that
there was no response from the other Privy Council nominees, and it is
unclear whether Professor Schofield is responding on his own behalf or
collectively. It would be helpful to know.
What is worryingly clear, however, is that the current proposal to reconstitute
the Society’s Council with 10 lay members, two technicians and
17 pharmacists leaves the pharmacist majority wafer-thin, especially
given Professor Schofield’s statement. This proposal, if adopted,
will, de facto, spell the end to the Society’s role as a representative
body for pharmacists.
Andrew Gush
Porthcawl, Mid Glamorgan |
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.