The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 272 No 7282 p43
17 January 2004

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

News summary

Related websites
Charter links and articles (more)

Concerns raised with Privy Council over new Charter

Eleven past-presidents and two former heads of the law department of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society have written to the Privy Council to express grave concerns about the Council's petition for a new Royal Charter.

Ann Lewis, Secretary and Registrar of the Society commented: “It is open to anyone to send their views on the draft Charter to the Privy Council Office during the gazetting period, which closes on 23 January. It is for the Privy Council to consider the submissions it receives. We will respond to any request for information or comment that we receive from the Privy Council Office.”

In their letter, the 11 past-presidents ask the Privy Council to advise the Society to gain its members’ approval before a new Charter is granted. They write that they are concerned that the objects in the proposed new Charter differ profoundly from those in the present Charter. “The duty of the Society to regulate the profession (which we do not oppose) has never been founded in the Charter. The Society, as established under its Charter, is a professional body, and the addition to the Charter of regulatory objects is a very substantial change, the nature and effect of which has not been properly explained to the members nor agreed by them. The object relating to representation of members has similarly been altered without adequate explanation to or agreement of the members,” they say.

Gordon Appelbe says the Council has broken the rules on Charter changes

Meanwhile, in a separate letter, Gordon Appelbe and Sue Sharpe, writing as former heads of the law department at the Society, say that the Council has not followed correct procedure. They write: “The present Royal Charter includes, in Article 20, procedures that must be followed for any amendment of the Charter. These require that a majority of three-fourths of members of Council support the proposed change, and that it then be supported by three-fourths of members attending and voting at a special general meeting. The Council has not followed this procedure. We believe that the Council must, as a minimum, comply with the requirements prescribed for any amendment to the present Charter when seeking a new Charter.” They also point out that at the special general meeting in June 2003, a resolution was passed unanimously that a referendum of members on any proposed new Charter be held. A referendum has not been held.

Speaking at a press briefing this week, Miss Lewis said that if the Charter petition were unsuccessful, “we will be back at square one”. This could be a disadvantage, she explained, because of progression with the Section 60 order. “The Section 60 order would proceed and any new Charter would then be subject to that,” she said. “In terms of the order, it is better for the Charter to be in the lead since matters in the Charter are more under our control than matters in legislation are.”

Miss Lewis confirmed that the Society expects that a three-month consultation on the Section 60 order will take place later this year.