The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7280 p848
20/27 December 2003

Society summary

Listening to pharmacists: how the final draft Charter addresses members’ concerns

The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has now petitioned the Privy Council to grant the Society a new supplemental Charter. This article, by Christine Gray, the Society's modernisation programme project manager, gives an outline of where, when and how the Council made changes to the original draft based on membership feedback

The Council’s proposed text for a new Charter (PJ, 13 December, p826) is the outcome of a process that began when the first draft Charter was published in March and circulated to the membership and others for comment.The consultation feedback (430 responses) was collated in September and considered by the Council.

Second draft

After consulting the membership and others and taking account of their views, the Council made several major changes to the first draft and in October a second, revised version was circulated to the membership and others for comment. The major ways in which this differed from the first draft, and the reasons for the changes, are set out below.

Revised objects In the first draft, the object “to maintain the honour and safeguard and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy” was included as a power. Many members argued that, without such an express object, the Society in future might have difficulty in fully carrying out its crucial professional leadership and development role. The October revision therefore added an object at 2(3): “to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness and interests of the profession of pharmacy”. This was done to provide clear legitimacy for the professional leadership and development role.

The wording of the original object was changed to “the profession of pharmacy” from “members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy”. This was designed to remove a long-standing ambiguity and to make it clear that the Society cannot represent or champion the interests of an individual member or group of members but must look to the interests of the profession as a whole, in all its diversity.

Devolution Some members believed that the first draft Charter did not properly address the implications of devolution for the Society in Scotland and Wales. In response, a revision was made that placed a mandatory obligation on the Council to ensure that appropriate structures would be created in Scotland and Wales to reflect the full implications of devolution [Article 7*]. It also provided the framework for the proper devolution of powers within the Society to ensure that the new structures would work [Article 8(4)].

Inclusiveness The feedback showed that some members were concerned that the draft Charter did not do enough to reflect all sections of the profession adequately. This concern could probably be better addressed through a strategy or business plan rather than in the Charter, which would, of course, apply across the whole of the profession. Any attempt to list all the professional sectors within the Charter would lead to it becoming quickly out of date, as new sectors of practice are developing. With these caveats in mind, the objects were amended to include not only a commitment to promote knowledge of pharmacy but also the application of that knowledge, as being consistent with fostering and developing the science and practice of pharmacy [Articles 2(1) & 2(4)]. Some members called for the Charter provisions relating both to practitioners and to premises to be listed in separate Articles, to remove any perception of an undue focus on community pharmacy, and this was incorporated into the October revision [Articles 3(3)–3(6)].

AGM A requirement for an annual general meeting was reinstated [Article 6].

Final draft

Feedback on the second consultation (245 responses) was collated and was considered by the Council in December. The final draft Charter was agreed. The main differences from the second draft, and the reasons for the changes, are set out below.

Revised objects The objects were modified in several places. All the changes were designed to give clearer expression to the purposes for which the Society exists and the context in which it operates. There has been a good deal of debate about the Society’s purpose as a membership body and the proper exercise of its representational and leadership functions (see above). The Council now believes it has distilled the most appropriate form of words, taking into full account the views of members and other groups.

Object 2(3) was expanded as “to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and to support the professional interests of pharmacists”. The Council thought that this wording, which reinstated a specific reference to “pharmacists” and emphasised the need for the Society to support pharmacists in the best possible sense, was the most appropriate way to address members’ concerns, while clearly expressing this aspect of the Society’s remit.

Public benefit The description of the objects was changed from “for the public benefit” to “within the context of the public benefit”. This was to reflect the facts that the Society’s overall activities are for the public benefit and the Society would take not act in any way that conflicted with the public benefit. However, some aspects of the Society’s professional work (for example, some aspects of benevolence work) could be considered neutral in terms of public benefit.

Public well-being Objects (2) and (4) were amended to emphasise pharmacy’s contribution to the public’s well-being as well as its health. This acknowledges the increasing integration of health and social care and reflects the contribution pharmacists make beyond the strict parameters of health care.

Other categories of membership The second draft had defined members of the Society as being registered pharmacists “and such other persons in such other categories as may, on application by the Council, be approved from time to time by order of our Privy Council”.

Concerns were expressed that technicians could hereby become members of the Society in the same way as pharmacists. There are, in fact, no plans for this to happen. Technicians and perhaps other groups could potentially receive some form of associate membership, subject to consultation with the membership and Privy Council approval, but they would not become full members in the same way as pharmacists. The words “the creation of any such category shall be subject to appropriate consultation with the membership” were added to article 5 in the final draft to help provide a measure of reassurance to the membership.

Devolution The words “subject to appropriate consultation” were added to Article 7(1) to make it clear that the Council will need to consult with the membership and others before establishing any structures proposed in Scotland and Wales.

Pharmacist majority on Council The words “a majority of the Council shall be registered pharmacists” have been included (Article 8). It has never been the intention that pharmacists should not form the majority on Council — this wording simply makes this explicit in response to members’ concerns.

Pharmacist president Article 8(5) now stipulates that the President “shall be a registered pharmacist”. Again, it has never been the intention that the President should be other than a registered pharmacist and this wording makes this explicit.