The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7279 p819-825
13 December 2003

Society summary

December Council meeting

Council petitions for new Charter

The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has submitted a petition to the Privy Council seeking a new Royal Charter for the Society. It did so after approving a final version of the proposed new Charter at its meeting on 2 December, following its consideration of the feedback from the most recent consultation (PJ, 29 November, p755).

Among other things, the final version of the Charter includes a further revision of the third Object of the Society, which now reads: “to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and to support the professional interests of pharmacists”.

The Council’s agreement to a final version of the Charter and its approval of the petition to the Privy Council were not unanimous. In each case there were 16 votes in favour, with the remaining eight Council members voting against or abstaining.

The Council also rejected a motion calling on it to ballot the members of the Society to seek their approval for the process incorporated in the new Charter (see p822).

Opening the debate on the Charter, the PRESIDENT said that, 24 hours earlier, during a “strategic thinking day”, the Council had reflected on the feedback from the consultation, which had been both varied and useful. The Council now had before it a new document incorporating several changes that had been discussed during the previous day’s lengthy and informal debate on all the points raised.

There had been a long debate on Object 3 in the new draft and the Council, breaking a cardinal rule, had redrafted it on the hoof to reflect and address the concerns expressed by members. Two redrafted versions had found favour with the members of Council who were present. One version was “to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and the interests of pharmacists in the exercise of their profession.” The other was “to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness and interests of the profession of pharmacy and to support pharmacists in the exercise of their profession”.

However, when these options had been discussed with Robert Bulling [of Allen & Overy — an expert in the law relating to chartered bodies and a member of the Society’s modernisation steering group], he had said that the first option might not be workable. The Officers had met to discuss this. They believed there was an issue around the clarity of the wording and also around balancing the message the Society wished to convey to members with the message given to those who scrutinised the Society from outside the profession — the Government, the overarching new regulator and the new patient bodies.

Bearing that in mind, the Officers had thought that wording similar to the second option could provide this balance by reassuring members that the Council had acted on their concerns. The Council had reinstated a specific reference to pharmacists and had agreed to emphasise the need for the Society to support pharmacists in the best possible sense.

The President then presented the Council with the recommendation of the Officers: “To safeguard and maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and to support pharmacists in the exercise of their profession”. This, she said, represented a significant movement from the original drafting in March where this was stated as a power, and from the second draft published in October.

NOEL WICKS asked why Mr Bulling thought the first option was not workable.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the statement was not grammatically correct. There was no verb relating to “the interests of pharmacists”. The Officers therefore had proposed the revised wording.

The PRESIDENT proposed to return to Object 3 at the end of the debate and begin by seeking agreement to other changes.

In Article 2, which set out the Objects of the Society, it was proposed to replace “ ... for the public benefit” with “ ... within the context of the public benefit”. (Agreed)

In Object 2, it was proposed to replace “to promote and protect the health of the public ...” with “to promote and protect the health and wellbeing of the public ...” (Agreed)

In Object 4, it was proposed to replace “to maintain and develop the science and practice of pharmacy in its contribution to society” with “to maintain and develop the science and practice of pharmacy in its contribution to the health and well-being of the public”. (Agreed)

In Article 5 [concerning the membership of the Society], there were two additions: the words “in Great Britain” were added after “registered pharmacists” and the sentence “The creation of any such category shall be subject to appropriate consultation with the membership” was added after “by order of Our Privy Council”. The last sentence [which concerns annual general meetings] was now a separate Article 6, and the previous Article 6 and subsequent articles had been renumbered accordingly.

Commenting on the addition of the new sentence, DOUGLAS SIMPSON said he would like to see a system for members to give permission for these changes to take place. He thought somewhere the members should give their express permission for membership to be extended.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said the wording provided for appropriate consultation and within Regulations that could be specified.

Mr SIMPSON asked whether Regulations could go further than the Charter in terms of the power. If the Charter talked about “consult”, could the Regulations be stronger and ask for permission?

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that Regulations could state what the consultation should consist of.

MARSHALL DAVIES thought there was a misunderstanding that extended outside the Council chamber. The Charter was an enabling document. Whatever the Society wished to do had to be within its Objects or powers. It was not prescriptive — it did not tell the Society what it should do, nor what it could or should not do. All it did was list the areas of activity that were within the Society’s interests now and potentially in the future for decisions to be taken by the Council of the day. The Council of the day could introduce Byelaws or seek new Regulations that would be specific on specific points.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said the Charter would provide the power for the Society under Regulations to specify how things should be done within the framework provided by the Charter.

The TREASURER said the need to consult both the membership and the Privy Council provided an incredibly good safeguard. She did not wish to fetter the Council of the future with anything more than that.

SULTAN DAJANI said he understood the Charter was enabling, but it was also permissive and therefore could be changed as and when. He wished to see it strengthened so that it could not be abused. The Council could change it without the support of the membership, although there would be a consultation. It should be strengthened so there could be a veto by the membership, or an agreement via a referendum. He wished to give more influence to the membership and wanted his dissent recorded.

The PRESIDENT then put to a vote the addition of “The creation of any such category would be subject to appropriate consultation with membership”, which was carried by 19 votes to two.

HEMANT PATEL said that Article 5 referred to the approval of new categories “on the application of the Society”. This had been changed from “application by the Council”. He wanted clarification so that people outside could understand the change and what was meant by the word “Society”.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that “Society” was an incorporated body, so it meant the Society, as a legal entity, can make the application.

ANDREW BURR said if it just said “Council”, it would be the Council that made the decision. By saying “Society” it meant Council and the membership. It was broad and that was the intention.

The President said that in Article 8 [formerly Article 7] it was proposed that “to appoint officers of the Society in accordance with regulations” should be replaced with “to appoint a President who shall be a registered pharmacist and other officers of the Society in accordance with the regulations”. (Agreed)

PAT HOARE pointed out that although the words “for the public benefit” had been changed to “within the context of public benefit” in Article 2, the words “for the public benefit” still appeared within the preamble to the Charter. Should that be changed too?

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that that was normal wording in the preamble of royal charters and it should remain.

Professor BOB MICHELL said he was happy that the wording remained at that point in the document because it related to a somewhat different context to where it really mattered to the membership.

After a break, the PRESIDENT moved on to Object 3, in Article 2. She said that there was some concern about a change from the previous day. In front of the Council was a recommendation of the Officers, but during the break they had received a recommendation from Clive Jackson, which the Officers thought was acceptable.

CLIVE JACKSON said that, in the interests of trying to find a form of words that most could sign up to, he suggested the following: “to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and to support the professional interests of pharmacists”.

Mr SIMPSON said that wording considered on the previous day — “promoting the interests of the members in their exercise of professional pharmacy” — would be more acceptable to the membership because it preserved the wording in the current Charter, which members were keen on, having voted for it in the special general meeting. The verb “promote” governed both “the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy” and “the interests of pharmacists in the exercise of their profession”. So there was a verb which was satisfactory. If Mr Bulling did not spot one, the word “promote” qualified both the phrases he had given.

Professor MICHELL thought that Mr Jackson’s wording was the best they had seen. What it was saying was that the Society would support the interests of pharmacists that related to the pursuit of their profession. That was what was encapsulated in the original and it did not exclude anything that would have been expected of the Society in the original. It should reassure the membership and also reassure the Privy Council that the Society was not about to become a trade union in any of it activities. If one could do the twin thing of preserving the legitimate interests of the members and having something that Government would accept, then why should any intelligent profession look such a gift horse in the mouth? It would fly in the face of the attitude of all three political parties to professional self-regulation, which was that it was a conspiracy. Mr Jackson’s wording should sufficiently satisfy the membership, if they understood the enormous privilege they had in being so close to safeguarding for the foreseeable future the privilege — and it was a huge privilege — of self-regulation.

DIGBY EMSON said that Mr Jackson’s version added some clarity to the important professional role the Council saw for the Society going forward that had been part of the work that it had done.

Mr DAJANI said that he did not support Mr Jackson’s amendment simply because he preferred “in the interests of pharmacists in the exercise of their profession”. To “support the professional interests of pharmacists” was too restrictive. For example, changes to remuneration and dispensing fees were not specifically professional interests and could not be defined as such.

Mr BURR said that too great an emphasis on professional interest would not go down well in Westminster, but he could live with Mr Jackson’s suggestion. It was one contribution he would be prepared to back.

MARTIN ASTBURY said that Mr Jackson’s wording did not reflect the consensus reached on the previous day. He would rather they used the words which almost everybody had backed. If it needed the addition of a verb, the simple case of adding “to support” would suffice.

HELEN HOWE said that she supported the words Mr Jackson suggested. They provided a way forward with the concerns that had come out of the consultation.

Professor MICHAEL SCHOFIELD said that Mr Jackson had done a good job in producing his form of words.

GERALD ALEXANDER said he was deeply unhappy about having to make a decision based on the information put before the Council that afternoon. The documentation produced for the meeting had contained a recommendation from the Officers that differed from the previous day’s straw poll of Council members, the content of which he believed the legal adviser was reasonably happy with. And now there was another suggestion, albeit a reasonable one, which no one had had enough time to consider.

To vote on the hoof on the basis of what Council members had before them that afternoon was nonsense. He did not care whether civil servants at the Department of Health thought the Society should petition on 5 December. The Society was an old and honourable established professional body, and Council members owed it to themselves and the members to give due consideration to the content of the petition. If he were able to think about it overnight, he might come to a reasonable decision.

The PRESIDENT said that all Council members knew that they needed to take the decision that afternoon. They had been told time and time again about the time scales.

Dr NICOLA GRAY said that most of the amendments had been fairly minor and Council members had been well briefed. The Charter should not be allowed to fall because Council members only received the papers a short time before the meeting.

CHRISTINE GLOVER, supporting Mr Jackson’s wording, said that although Mr Alexander was suggesting that they were doing it at the last minute, they had been through every word of the Charter and were now down to one paragraph. They had achieved a huge consensus and she hated to think they could to lose the plot on the back of the last paragraph. The wording was spot on, and she foresaw little argument about it.

The PRESIDENT then put to the vote the wording proposed by Mr Jackson: “to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and to support the professional interests of pharmacists”.

The wording was approved by 17 votes to seven. Those voting in favour were the President, the Vice-President, the Treasurer, Mr Burr, Mr Davies, Mr Dove, Mr Emson, Dr Entwistle, Mrs Glover, Dr Gray, Mrs Greensmith, Mrs Hoare, Mrs Howe, Mr Jackson, Professor Michell, Mr Patel and Professor Schofield. Those voting against were Mr Alexander, Mr Astbury, Mr Dajani, Mr Simpson, Mr Tanna, Mr Wicks and Mr Wood.

Mr ALEXANDER said he had voted against because of the lack of time for consideration of the matter. He was deeply unhappy about it.

The PRESIDENT then asked the Council to agree the final version of the new Charter for submission to the Privy Council. The Council agreed, there being 16 votes for and seven against, with one abstention.

Those in favour were the President, the Vice-President, The Treasurer, Mrs Hoare, Mrs Howe, Mr Burr, Mr Davies, Mr Dove, Mr Emson, Dr Entwistle, Mrs Glover, Dr Gray, Mrs Greensmith, Mr Jackson, Professor Michell and Professor Schofield. Those against were Mr Alexander, Mr Astbury, Mr Dajani, Mr Simpson, Mr Tanna, Mr Wicks and Mr Wood. Mr Patel abstained.

The PRESIDENT asked the Council to approve the petition for submission to the Privy Council, to which the proposed new Charter would be attached. The petition was approved by 16 votes to five, with three abstentions.

Those in favour were the President, the Vice-President, the Treasurer, Mr Burr, Mr Davies, Mr Dove, Mr Emson, Dr Entwistle, Mrs Glover, Dr Gray, Mrs Greensmith, Mrs Hoare, Mrs Howe, Mr Jackson, Professor Michell and Professor Schofield. Those against were Mr Astbury, Mr Dajani, Mr Simpson, Mr Wicks and Mr Wood. Those abstaining were Mr Alexander, Mr Patel and Mr Tanna.

The PRESIDENT asked the Council to agree that the President and Vice-President should attest the affixing of the Society’s common seal to the petition for the new Charter. The Council agreed by a vote of 16 votes to five, with three abstentions.

Those in favour were the President, the Vice-President, the Treasurer, Mr Burr, Mr Davies, Mr Dove, Mr Emson, Dr Entwistle, Mrs Glover, Dr Gray, Mrs Greensmith, Mrs Hoare, Mrs Howe, Mr Jackson, Professor Michell and Professor Schofield. Those against were Mr Astbury, Mr Dajani, Mr Simpson, Mr Wicks and Mr Wood. Those abstaining were Mr Alexander, Mr Patel and Mr Tanna.

The PRESIDENT went on to ask the Council to consider whether the Officers should be authorised to deal with any minor changes proposed by the Privy Council that were not felt to require a Council decision.

The Council agreed unanimously that, with the exception of typographical errors, all changes should be brought back to the full Council.

Mr SIMPSON informed the Council that, in line with paragraph 10 of the code of conduct for Council members, he reserved the right to speak in opposition to some of the terms of the new Charter and the decision to petition without the members being aware of its final content.

Mr WICKS said that he too wished to inform the Council that he might feel publicly compelled to oppose Council policy over the issue of the Charter. It was his duty to inform the President of that.

NICHOLAS WOOD said that he felt, regrettably, that the case would be the same for himself.

Mr ASTBURY said that there was also a possibility that after a further look at the new draft Charter he might oppose it. He would certainly oppose the vote against a referendum.

Mr DAJANI said that he might feel compelled, while stating the Society’s position, to state the reasons why he was against the position.

Mr ALEXANDER said that he should say something similar. He was concerned about the process and therefore might make comment on that.

Motion to ballot the members

The Council rejected by 16 votes to five a motion calling on it to seek the membership’s approval before petitioning for a new Charter for the Society.

NICHOLAS WOOD moved: “That prior to petitioning for a new supplementary Charter, there should be a ballot of the members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in order to seek their approval for the proposals incorporated in the new Charter”.

Mr Wood said that there were half a dozen good reasons why members might not vote for the motion:

(1) it was not the Society’s way, since the Council was charged with the direction of the Society and did not need to go to the members each time it wanted to make a decision

(2) it was a delaying tactic that the Council did not have the time for, because it had spent a great deal of time working out the proposals and it was now time to take a decision

(3) the Council had already decided not to hold a referendum because two consultations had taken place and they did not need another

(4) a ballot would be too expensive and there was no budget for it

(5) the Council had to show leadership and should not be pushed around by a small bunch of mavericks who were unrepresentative of the profession

(6) Sixthly, here was Wood coming along again with a problem — a renegade past-president, full of backward looking ideas trying to drag Council into a world which no longer existed.

Starting with number 6, Mr Wood said that he was just one of the voices of the problem. The problem was among the membership and he and others had been trying to tell the Council what the problem was. The problem could be seen in the pages of The Journal that week, in the special general meeting of June calling for a ballot; and in the petition from Hassan Argomandkhah, who had collected over 1,000 signatures calling for a ballot. Mr Wood was not the problem and nor was the Save Our Society group. He was just the messenger. Please would they not shoot the messenger.

On Reason 1, that it was not the Society’s way to have a ballot, Mr Wood suggested that the Charter was a special case. The normal route for proposals to change the 1953 Charter was to put it to a meeting of the members. In this instance, the Society had circumvented that. At the Council’s strategic thinking day on 1 December, Robert Bulling had explained that that could happen. Nevertheless, legitimacy had been denied and could only be restored by a ballot. A ballot was unusual, but so was a new Charter.

Turning to Reason 2, Mr Wood said that although a ballot would delay matters it was better to be late and right than early and wrong. The debate on the wording of the Charter would indicate that things were still wrong, despite the time and effort put in on the previous day. There should be more time on the third draft. It had been said that Council members had only had 15 minutes, which was quite unreasonable, for a document of such importance. Also, they did not know yet fully the contents of the Section 60 Order. They had to seriously consider some delay.

On Reason 3‚ Mr Wood said that the Council was not obliged to take notice of consultations and it seemed they might not do so. The consultations so far seemed to be backing largely a dissenting view of the Council’s proposals. The Council could take any decision it liked in relation to this, including reversing its decision not to hold a ballot. If Council members had the courage of their convictions on the proposals, they would have nothing to lose in changing their minds and holding a ballot; it would just take a little longer.

On Reason 4, Mr Wood said that a ballot might be expensive, but it was less expensive than the alternatives. The SGM in June had cost £28,150, but the last Council election, which was a complicated ballot, had cost £24,547.55. Pushing forward without a ballot risked another SGM, at which anything could happen, including a proposal of no confidence in the Council, which would not be helpful. He was not in a position to stop such a thing, nor was the President.

Reason 5 was that the Council should show leadership. But if the Council was confident that its proposals were in the best interests of the Society, then to campaign and win a yes vote would give enormous legitimacy to the new Charter and would silence the critics. If the Council was confident that the draft was the best available, there was nothing to lose by having a ballot.

MARTIN ASTBURY, seconding the motion, said that to change a tiny piece of the Charter required an SGM with a 75 per cent vote in favour. Throwing away the whole Charter and starting with a new one should also have the members’ backing, whether at an SGM or, as was his preference, through a referendum.

DOUGLAS SIMPSON, supporting the motion, said that he favoured anything that enabled members to show their support for major changes. In the past, changes to the Charter had always been backed by an SGM, allowing the Society to petition with the membership behind it. It would go to the Privy Council with uncontroversial proposals, so far as the membership was concerned. The membership in June had called for a referendum and he was happy to go along with members’ wishes. If the motion was successful, he hoped that both sides would be allowed to present their views clearly so the members could make up their minds in a proper fashion.

CHRISTINE GLOVER, commenting on Mr Wood’s six reasons for voting against his motion, said that although the budget would not be a legitimate reason she could probably run with the others. If ever there was a time for leadership this was it. The Society was under immense scrutiny from the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, because it was the furthest behind in modernising its regulation, and it had the Section 60 Order coming out for consultation shortly. The Council had decided to put the Charter in at the same time as the Section 60 Order proposals to ensure they would run together, be integrated and move smoothly together. Any delay in putting the Charter requirements would seriously damage the Charter’s prospects. Council members should have the courage of their convictions.

In any event, what question would they ask on the referendum? Although the Council was privy to all the information, it had taken it a long time to understand the intricacies, the points of law and everything else. What question would it ask? It was a nonsense. She urged the Council to reject the motion in the strongest possible way. She hated being threatened and was prepared to stand up and be counted. In time to come, people would say the Council had done a good job with the Charter.

Asked for clarification on the time scale for submission of the proposed new Charter, the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Department of Health’s regulatory branch was currently drafting the Section 60 Order on the basis that the Council would petition for a new Charter in December, so that the Charter and the Section 60 order could be brought into effect at the same time.

Professor MICHAEL SCHOFIELD added that the problem with a referendum would be how to interpret the results. There were 46,000 members. If 5,000 members voted, with 3,000 voting in one direction and 2000 in another, the matter would come back to Council on how to interpret the wishes of the thousands who did not vote. One could interpret them as being supportive of the Council or in the opposite way. The issue would still come back to the Council to resolve.

HELEN HOWE said that if the Government did not have a Charter that it felt was in the public interest, then the Section 60 Order would take over. The absolute problem with a referendum would be the time scale. The Society had to put in its petition by the end of the week because if the Privy Council did not have it to debate on 10 December, then all sorts of important matters might go into the Section 60 Order. By delaying, the Society would lose out big time.

Mr SIMPSON pointed out that the Section 60 Order would be subject to consultation. It would not be cut and dry when it came out.

The PRESIDENT reminded the Council that from the word go it had been clear that the Section 60 Order and the Charter had to go in together. The petition had to be submitted by 5 December. It was not possible to change the timing.

HEMANT PATEL asked who had said that if the petition did not reach the Privy Council by Friday, the Section 60 Order would take over.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the regulatory branch of the Department, which was drafting the Section 60 Order, had advised the Society that it would need the Charter to be submitted before the next Privy Council meeting so that the process for its consideration could start. They needed to know what was in the Charter while drafting the Section 60 Order.

Dr NICOLA GRAY said that the Council had been given some supremely important decisions to make about the Charter. What was regrettable was the events that had happened during the year to undermine the members’ trust in their Council to provide the best way forward. If the Council did decide to go for a referendum — and she would vote against — it would have to campaign strongly for a yes vote because there would be a body out there campaigning strongly for a no vote. She feared a referendum would not be neutral.

SULTAN DAJANI said that when it came to a time scale issue, only the Council was to blame. The SGM had taken place in June and the Council could have listened to the membership then and made the agreements it had only just made. Secondly, if a decision not to hold a ballot led to a cross-petition or another SGM, that could be far more damaging and embarrassing to the profession than a delay of a couple of months to hold a ballot. He was also concerned about where Council members stood legally if they went ahead without a referendum.

DIGBY EMSON thought that it would be difficult to identify the issues in a straightforward yes/no referendum. It would be difficult to modify the Charter to appeal to all the different interest groups. He was not against a referendum as a matter of principle, but needed more clarity on how it would help. He had been more convinced by the process of consultation.

NOEL WICKS urged the Council to vote for the motion and use a referendum to confirm what he hoped would be a new Charter that would have everyone behind it.

MARSHALL DAVIES said that the advantage of a referendum was that it would be clear who was in favour. The disadvantage when considering complex issues was that it was doubtful whether anyone was absolutely 100 per cent in favour of every policy decision taken. To ask “Are you in favour or not?” of individuals who did not understand the totality of the issues was not the best way forward. The best way was for the Council to take the decision based on the totality of knowledge and information they had.

PHILLIDA ENTWISTLE said that she opposed a referendum because history suggested it would not attract a level of response in which the Council could have confidence.

CLIVE JACKSON said that only if the Council could not establish a consensus should a referendum be preferred, although it would be difficult to design and deliver.

The TREASURER said that the Department of Health timetable did not allow the Council the luxury of a referendum. She hoped the Council would have the courage to act as leaders, to take the profession forward and safeguard it for the future.

ANDREW BURR said that at the SGM he had been in favour of a referendum. The reason why he would now vote against a referendum was all about professional leadership. The Council was balancing the time scales and juggling risk, but at the end of the day it had to make a decision, even if it proved unpopular with some pharmacists.

The PRESIDENT put Mr Wood’s motion to the vote. It was lost by five votes to 16, with three abstentions. Those in favour were Mr Astbury, Mr Dajani, Mr Simpson, Mr Wicks and Mr Wood. Those against were the President, the Vice-President, the Treasurer, Mr Burr, Mr Davies, Mr Dove, Mr Emson, Dr Entwistle, Mrs Glover, Dr Gray, Mrs Greensmith, Mrs Hoare, Mrs Howe, Mr Jackson, Professor Michell and Professor Schofield. Mr Alexander, Mr Patel and Mr Tanna abstained.

Professor BOB MICHELL said that all three Privy Council representatives had voted with the majority in each of the votes on the Charter. Whether formally or informally, as appropriate, that should be drawn to the attention of the Privy Council.

(Later, Mr SIMPSON said that Professor Michell’s suggestion implied a greater significance for Privy Council nominees’ votes than for those of the elected members. He contended that in such matters the votes of elected members had equal merit. If the Society was to draw attention to how the Privy Council nominees voted, it should also draw attention to the fact that about one-third of elected members voted against or abstained in relation to the key votes on the content of the new Charter and on going straight away to petition for a new Charter.)

The PRESIDENT said that Council members needed to think about the momentous decisions they had made. She believed that the courage to face and work through difficult decisions and issues until a resolution was found was a sign of both maturity and commitment. She believed that the preparedness to learn and improve was a sign of strength and leadership.

If Council members closed their eyes to the shift in public attitudes towards professions they would be on a path of imposition by the Government and a loss of trust by the public and other stakeholders. She did not think this was a price they would want to pay.

They had worked together for their own integrity, for the public and, indirectly, for the good name and self-respect of their profession. They had an overriding duty and responsibility to the public to protect patients by making sure that they were looked after by competent pharmacists working with safe systems and delivering high quality services. They had done their duty that day.

This professionalism would contribute to the further building of public confidence and trust. She believed that they owed this to the future generations of their profession. She wished to thank Council members for bearing with her that afternoon and getting them to this point.

Referrals to court by CRHP

The Council approved a draft response to a consultation on how the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals should decide whether to use its power (under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002) to refer to the courts certain decisions of disciplinary committees of regulatory bodies.

Among other things, the response expressed concern at the proposed time limit of four weeks for a referral decision. This was seen as unduly restrictive and a cause for anxiety as to the CRHP’s ability to ensure that all parties concerned had been able to make any relevant submissions. There was also the risk of the CRHP being exposed to a risk of judicial review in the event of the time scale not being met for good reason.

Another of the Society’s concerns was about the CRHP’s power to refer a decision that a practitioner was not guilty of misconduct. This could undermine the principle of professional self-regulation, and it seemed unjust that a practitioner could be the subject of a referral after having been declared not guilty. A further concern was that the proposed approach could allow a referral decision to be delegated to a single person, which would not command the confidence of the regulator or the public.

During the Council’s debate, comments were made about the potential financial risk that the Society would face with the liability of costs with regard to the Section 29 power, and also the amount of administrative work that would be required if a decision were referred.

It was also suggested that disciplinary committees might be tempted to issue striking-off orders where a less severe penalty might be appropriate. Because its interest was the protection of the public, the CRHP had said that it would not be interested in reviewing striking-off decisions (which did protect the public). Where there was a doubt, a disciplinary committee might tend to err on the side of striking off, knowing that such a decision would not be challenged. However, if a striking-off decision was seen as too harsh, there was a greater chance of an appeal by the practitioner concerned.

It was also pointed out that the Society’s new disciplinary committee would have far wider powers than the Statutory Committee in terms of levels of response and punishment, and this would provide more opportunities for intervention by the CRHP.

Head of UK delegation to PGEU

The Council agreed that in future the post of head of the United Kingdom delegation to the Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union should rotate between the bodies concerned, with the terms of service reflecting each organisation’s share of the fee for UK membership of the PGEU. The UK delegation is made up of the Society, the National Pharmaceutical Association and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, with the fee split between the three organisations on the basis of 47.5 per cent each for the Society and the NPA and 5 per cent for the PSNI.

Council members were of the opinion that the Society and NPA delegates should each serve as head for four years and the PSNI delegate for one or two years.

The Council had been asked to consider the constitution and governance arrangement for the UK delegation because the current head of delegation, Bill Darling, who represents the Society, is due to retire at the end of 2003.

The Council went on to agree that the Society’s delegate should in future serve for a fixed term of four years, renewable for a further period of four years. The delegate would be a member of Council and appointment would be subject to the person in office remaining on the Council.

Availability of information

The Council approved a “publication scheme” listing the recorded information readily available to the public from the Society. Such as scheme is a requirement of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the scheme had been drawn up on the basis of discussions with other regulators. It listed information that could be guaranteed and made available currently and which the Society felt should be available. Most of the information was already available free either through the Society’s website or on paper. The document had to be sent in by the end of the month, but there would be opportunities to make additions.

Dr PHILLIDA ENTWISTLE said that she was surprised that the list did not include information about how to make a complaint. That was a fundamental issue.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said it would be in the paper in due course, but it was not yet available on the website.

MARSHALL DAVIES said that making it obvious how people could make a complaint had been debated by the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals the previous week. The Society had been one of only two regulatory bodies that were commended for telling the public how they could make a complaint. That was viewed as being particularly positive and the Society was seen in a good light. Therefore Mr Davies commended what Dr Entwistle had said and asked that the item be reintroduced as a matter of course.

Dr ENTWISTLE said that there was also no mention of the existence of pharmacists’ continuing professional development requirement. She thought that was something that would interest the public.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that that point would be taken back for consideration. There was already information about education, degrees and preregistration training and there was ‘Medicines, ethics and practice: a guide for pharmacists’, giving guidance and ethical codes. It could be included in that section.

DOUGLAS SIMPSON said that there was reference to the Statutory Committee transcripts being available on request but the document was silent on transcripts of Council meetings.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said making transcripts of Council meetings available was to be considered later in the meeting.

Parliamentary Fund

On the recommendation of its corporate governance group, the Council has decided to wind up the Society’s Parliamentary Fund, which has existed since 1842 to promote and assist the election or re-election of pharmacists to the House of Commons.

CHRISTINE GLOVER said that having a Parliamentary Fund was not appropriate for a modern regulator. The original intention was good and valid, but time had moved on and the fund should be dissolved.

Answering a question from MARTIN ASTBURY, the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Society had not consulted all other professional bodies, but no other body in pharmacy had a Parliamentary Fund.

GERALD ALEXANDER said that he could not support winding up the fund, even though there was not much money in it. At some stage it might be necessary to put a candidate forward to Parliament.

HEMANT PATEL said that there was a clear case for supporting the fund and, he hoped, extending it. He hoped the Council would reject the recommendation. The fund provided an opportunity for the Council to contribute to a wider debate for pharmacists in an area where they were grossly under-represented. There were many barristers and GPs in the House of Commons, but until recently there had not been a pharmacist in Parliament for a long time.

Stating that no other regulator had a Parliamentary Fund was not comparing like with like, since the Society was both regulator and professional representative body. At a time when there was concern in the profession about the Society abandoning its representative role, the Council had to be careful not to play into other people’s hands.

DOUGLAS SIMPSON said that it was the Society’s professional association role that led it to have a Parliamentary Fund. The matter should be considered in that mode rather than the regulatory mode. But the key point was whether the Society was getting value for money from the election candidates it had supported.

DIGBY EMSON that the area was one that the Society should not be in, either as a professional body or as a regulator. It was not the right way to channel resources. What had been far more effective in terms of political lobbying was the All-Party Pharmacy Group (APPG).

SULTAN DAJANI said that the fund should be reviewed and modernised rather than wound up. It was not working currently, but could be improved.

Professor MICHAEL SCHOFIELD said that even if the fund was a good idea, and he did not think it was, the amount of money in it would achieve little.

NOEL WICKS said that he felt uncomfortable with the current arrangements. Something needed to be done urgently, but how had the corporate governance group reached its decision?

Mrs GLOVER said that the group had not discussed the APPG. The issue was that people had given money in good faith for a particular fund. If there was the option of putting the money into the APPG those who gave the money were likely to be comfortable with that. But first the Council had to decide whether to continue with the fund.

The TREASURER said that the fund was so small that the grants given would have no effect on candidate’s election prospects. The best course of action would be to wind it up.

HELEN HOWE supported the recommendation but called for caution in how the message was communicated.

CLIVE JACKSON said that the fund was underresourced, inappropriately structured and unfit for the purpose as it stood the moment.

The Council then accepted the recommendation and went on to agree that, subject to the wishes of those donors who can be traced, the fund should be used either for the work of the APPG or for the Benevolent Fund

Museum registered status

The Council approved a proposal designed to maintain the status of the Society’s museum under the national Museum Registration Scheme.

The Council was reminded that in December 2001 it had agreed a new direction for the museum which included the end of general public access to the displays. The Society had been advised by the London Museum Agency that this would not prejudice its registered status. However, the Society Council for Museums. Libraries and Archives had now informed the Society that maintaining registered status would require “a written commitment from the Council to re-establishing a level of public access at least equivalent to that would existed when the museum received full registration in 1997, together with a timescale.

A proposal had therefore been drafted under which, as a first phase, the museum would from January 2004 provide escorted access to the displays in the reception area, the assembly hall foyer, the mezzanine landing and the first floor for half a day a week, possibly also with an agreed number of group visits outside office hours. Such visits would have to be pre-booked. The museum would monitor the number of visitors, where they had found out about the museum and its opening hours, and the resource implications. Members and their guests would still be able to visit the displays without an appointment during office hours.

Phase two of the proposal would depend on a planned refurbishment of the reception area which would give it significant new museum displays from the end of 2004. With appropriate security provision, the public could be allowed access to this area without museum supervision. The other areas would continue to be open for half a day a week — again with the possibility of group visits outside working hours.

Welcoming greater public access to the museum, DOUGLAS SIMPSON asked whether items that were in store would be brought back into the building.

BRIONY HUDSON (keeper of the museum collections) said that the refurbishment was expected to allow the addition of new display cases in the reception area.

PAT HOARE said that the proposal went in some way to satisfy those who wanted the museum to exist as an entity. It would be interesting to see how the reception area could be enlarged to accommodate more display space. She regretted that museum access had been reduced to save a fairly small amount of money — and the Society had had to spend a great deal of money on putting the displays into storage.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the items were now in much more secure and appropriate storage, and there was in any case a rotation in and out of store, which made the museum a living entity.

Mrs HOARE said one of the ideas originally was that there would be some more temperature controlled display space. Had any thought been given to that?

Ms HUDSON said that the objects stored off-site were in optimum environmental conditions and the refurbished display cases were to high museum standards of environmental control. There would be more choice of what they could display.

The PRESIDENT said that Ms Hudson was doing a fantastic job.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Council should also congratulate Ms Hudson on some of the external displays. The mobile exhibits had appeared in some unusual places. It was important for them to be seen by a wider audience.

MARSHALL DAVIES said he endorsed what had been said. But the arrangements had to pay due regard to the security of the building and staff.

WALLY DOVE said that security was a real issue, and the format of the reception area left the building particularly vulnerable.

NOEL WICKS said that the proposal was important. The history of the profession was fascinating and it was important to understand the past. Was there any way to integrate more with pharmacy students? The profession’s younger members would appreciate and benefit from having more access to that history.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that some members of Council and staff were invited to speak at schools of pharmacy.

Ms HUDSON said that she had given lectures to students and had taken objects to demonstrate techniques.

Professor MICHAEL SCHOFIELD said that he supported the proposal. However, the impact on entry to the building should not be about the glories of the past. Although it was important to value the exhibits in the museum, they did not reflect the work of the present day. At some future date the Council ought to consider whether that was appropriate at the point of first impact.

Ms HUDSON said that consideration of what might be put into the reception display area was still in the early stages, but there was every intention of bringing the story up to the present day and including contemporary items.