New Council will have no sectoral reserved places
The Society’s new Council is not to have reserved places for specific fields of practice, the Council confirmed at the August
Council meeting.
The Council acknowledged that, with
or without reserved places, supporting
structures would be needed to ensure that specialist advice and expertise
is fed into the new Council and that it is kept aware of the circumstances
and concerns within all
sectors of the profession.
The Council made its decisions after considering a document setting out
the options for reserved sectoral places. The Council had agreed at its
October 2002 meeting that the new Council should not have reserved places
for fields of practice, but at its June 2004 reserve day it had decided
to re-examine the matter because of the importance of ensuring that the
new Council engages with and is informed by all sectors of the profession
in its deliberations and decision-making.
Alison Ewing said that defining a sectoral interest could be a minefield.
She strongly advocated having no reserved places for sectors.
Gerald Alexander also strongly advocated that there be no sectoral choice.
He suggested creating different groups within the supporting structure.
The Treasurer said that for many years there had been no representation
on the Council from industrial pharmacists. As a consequence, there had
been a progressive decline in the operations carried out by pharmacists
within industry. The Council was supposed to have global responsibility,
but as chairman of the Industrial Pharmacists Group for many years, he
had been frustrated by the lack of communication.
Without doubt, the Council’s single most significant failure had
been its failure to recognise the opportunity for pharmacy in “the
qualified person”. Pharmacists now accounted for less than 5 per
cent of those registering as qualified persons. Of late, there had been
some somewhat controversial issues as far as the Industrial Pharmacists
Group was concerned, such as the demise of the Industrial Pharmacist journal and arrangements for preregistration training in the industry.
The Treasurer also asked why it was all right for a pharmacist in Scotland
and Wales to have a preferred place on the Council, but not for a pharmacist
working in a particular sector.
Sultan Dajani, agreeing with the Treasurer, said that the Government
was forcing the Council to have an academic on the new Council. This
could place more importance on that sector and diminish the importance
of the other sectors. The Council had a commitment to the other sectors
and, if it was not going towards sectoral representation, then it needed
at least to draw up a firm proposal on commitment and representation.
Maurice Hickey said that there should be no representation on the Council
of any sort of group. The draft Charter allows the Society to have a
Council that deals with the regulatory issues. Below that would be other
bodies. One would be a professional representation body on which there
could be sectoral representation. The bodies for Scotland and Wales could
have their own sectoral representation. That was where that type of member
might be appropriate.
Noel Wicks said that he was against sectoral places on the Council but
not against having sectoral representation feeding into the Council from
committees and working groups.
Nicola Gray said that battle lines would be drawn if people were elected
from different sectors. It would reinforce the feeling of representation
rather than pan-professionalism. Although it was inevitable that election
candidates would appeal to certain sections of the electorate, the electorate
had to recognise what a Council member’s responsibilities were.
Any sectoral representation had to be at the next level. That would be
more flexible.
Gill Hawksworth reminded the Council of its previous decision that reserving
places on sectoral grounds would be wrong in principle, in that it would
not encourage a corporate approach and it could also undermine the Council’s
ethic of collective responsibility.
Bob Michell said that to him as a patient it was clear, whether one liked
it or not, that hospital pharmacists had been the torchbearers for progress
in working relationships with, for example, the medical profession and
in gaining access to patient records. From a public interest point of
view, it was preposterous that the Council was capable of not having
a single hospital pharmacist on it. As it currently stood, it had only
one.
He had experience of a different body, namely, the British Veterinary
Association, which was a purely representative body. It did not have
direct election but had a mix — a majority representing geographical
areas and a minority from specialist societies. The specialist groups
brought their expertise and vision, but they did not bang the drum of
their own small constituency. If they did, they would be ignored and
outvoted every time. There was therefore scope to consider whether there
were some areas of pharmacy that the Council could not afford to be without.
Christine Glover, supporting Professor Michell, suggested that the Council
needs hospital pharmacists on board — and the scientists/industrialists.
However much sectoral information was available, what happens in real
life is that suddenly a bit of expertise is dropped into the middle of
a debate and it shifts the dynamics. The present Council was all the
better for having a hospital pharmacist and an industrial pharmacist,
for having a range of skills around the table. She said that she had
moved her position on this and now thought that some appointed places
would be beneficial in the public interest.
Linda Stone said that the reasons why there would be reserved places
for Scotland and Wales was that the Government wanted it on every health
regulatory body. The reserved place for an educationalist was because
education was seen as having a pivotal role in determining the route
of continuing professional development and lifelong learning. The Society
differed from some other bodies in that the reserved place for an educationalist
would be for a pharmacist. This was a bonus that should not be lost.
Council members were responsible for, and accountable to, the profession
as a whole. Corporately, the Council had a responsibility to ensure that
it was properly advised and informed across the board. Because of the
diversity of the profession, that could not adequately be achieved through
reserved places. It had to be achieved by ensuring that the underpinnings
were correct.
The Vice-President said that there was more than one way of achieving
sectoral representation. People with ideas should be invited to send
them in so that the Council could consider all of the ideas together
and see how it could adequately represent all the different sectors in
the profession.
Clive Jackson said that the Society had a once-in-a-generation opportunity
to set up a professional leadership configuration, to allow it to grow
and develop effectively in the 21st century. The Council needed to consider
how best to restructure the profession’s expert influence and input
across the whole of the health and social care sectors, not just within
the profession. Attempting to put sectoral representation on the Council
would, at best, be a presentational sop. It would not guarantee appropriate
and effective input. It would undermine the Council’s overarching
strategic responsibility. What was needed was a new structure that not
only delivered cohesive, continuous and effective expert input into the
Council and the Society’s decision-making process but also learnt
from other professions in terms of increasing pharmacy’s influence
overall in terms of policy development within the health and social care
sectors.
Martin Astbury said that there were serious problems with having reserved
places for Scotland and Wales. He would like people to be able to stand
for the Council and the representative place simultaneously.
The President then put the matter of sectoral places on the Council to
a vote. There was a clear majority against sectoral places.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal