Council rescinds its decision to review the Government's requirements on regulation
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has rescinded a decision made at its June
meeting to set up a committee to review evidence relating to the Government's requirements in regard to the Society's regulatory function.
The Council’s decision had been made on the motion of Nicholas
Wood. The second of six motions proposed by Mr Wood, it read: “That
a committee, the members of which are to be confirmed by Council, be
formed
to review urgently all correspondence and reports of meetings between
representatives of the Department of Health, the Privy Council office,
Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals and the Society,
to establish the requirements of government in regard to the regulatory
functions of the Society, such a committee to provide an interim report
as soon as possible and a final report by the December 2004 Council meeting” (PJ,
19 June, p779).
Having passed the motion, the Council decided to defer the establishment
of such a committee until after its discussion at the strategy days on
29 and 30 June.
When the special
Council meeting on 30 June considered what further action
may be required in relation to the motion, the President noted that the
Council had already seen a whole series of documents between the Department
of Health and the Privy Council, which had been laid out in the committee
rooms over the previous few days.
Mr Argomandkhah said that the Council should find out whether there were
any lessons to be learnt from the processes that had got it into the
current situation. An audit by a group of senior Council members would
be beneficial.
The Secretary and Registrar pointed out that the resource implications
were considerable. The Society had much work to do in looking at the
requirements for new regulations and rules. The Council, in terms of
audit, should consider where it placed resources.
The Vice-President, on a point of order, said that the use of the term “senior
Council members” was confusing.
Christine Glover said that the motion should go.
The President disagreed. The motion had been agreed and the Council was
being asked to consider was what further action may be required.
Digby Emson suggested that, given the information already available,
no further action was required. The Council should thank the Officers
for providing the information swiftly and efficiently.
Gill Hawksworth said that it was not the Officers who had provided the
information. Two members of staff, Elaine Mulingani and Christine Gray,
had worked extremely hard for a number of days laying out the information
in the committee room. It had taken a vast amount of time and effort
and resource to put it together, but few people had been to look at it.
The President thought there was a proposal [to rescind the motion] that
he was happy to take. He asked if that was agreed.
The Secretary and Registrar pointed out that the Council needed to suspend
standing orders to withdraw a motion that had already been carried. On
a vote, the Council agreed to suspend standing orders. The President
then proposed the withdrawal of the motion, which was agreed.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal