|
Stephen Axon, of Amersham, Buckinghamshire, is a
former secretary of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
|
According to a report in The Journal of 11 December 2004 (p863), now
that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s membership has had its
say under the 60-day consultation on the Charter, the Department of Health
has decided it requires some “substantial changes to the regulations”.
Why on earth do we have to accept such fundamental intervention at this
late stage?
This scenario is, of course, fully consistent with the tactic so often
used by the Department in other spheres where the intervention is so
late that proper consultation cannot possibly take place. It is such
a pity that our leaders fall for this every time and that the Society
accepted it without protest.
This latest consultation is little more than a sham and an insult to
those of us who have hitherto taken time to respond to the staged consultation
process. As these changes come from the Department any unfavourable responses
from the membership are likely to be ignored by the Privy Council. The
statement of compliance with the Bye-laws requiring consultation where
the implementation has all but taken place is nothing more than window
dressing for a profession that is now self-governing in name only.
If these rather harsh comments need any justification, we need only to
go back to the report referred to above. It indicates that the changes
are “required” by the Department of Health and it goes on
to say that “Council has been able to agree the revised regulations”.
In addition, the eligibility
criteria of candidates for the reformed
Council, published two PJ issues later (1/8 January, p32), incorporates
three of the four “main changes” that are currently the subject
of consultation. (The Society acknowledges that the call
for nominations is conditional [ibid, p31].)
These changes from the Department could — and should — have
been highlighted within the initial consultations to enable them to be
debated. Indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that this debacle
could have been avoided if only the Society had reasonable communications
with the Department of Health or an efficient line of contact with its
chief pharmacist.
The Secretary and Registrar’s comment about the timetable changes
being “beyond our control” adds insult to injury. By referring
only to a timetable element she confirms that the changes were all acceptable
to the Council. Her comment goes on to imply that the lack of control
over the administrative niceties were the only issues of concern to the
Society. In accepting the disqualification of non-practising pharmacists
from Council membership her comment acknowledges that registered pharmacists
are unfit to elect their own leaders from their own Register without
guidance from the Department of Health.
In a democracy the electorate should not be unreasonably fettered in
its right to elect its own representatives. Interference from governmental
agents should only be countenanced where this is in the public interest
or where it is unavoidable. The changes below that are so important to
the Department of Health do not fall into this category and should not
have been nodded through by the Council:
Maximum term for Council members There is no logical justification for
a maximum term of service for Council members. Those who are best qualified
for the important positions on the Council should be available for continued
election as long as they turn in a good performance and command the support
and confidence of their electorate. If this system is good enough for
the mother of Parliaments, where we have some excellent members of many
more than nine years’ standing, and for most other systems where
any elector may stand for election, there is no reason why the Department
should consider that it is not appropriate for Society Council elections.
Restriction of pharmacist members of Council to practising pharmacists Like many pharmacists, I was unhappy with the diminishing proportion
of pharmacists on the new Council but the reasoning behind it was understandable.
In this respect the Department has justifiable input into the debate
about the overall composition of Council. Conversely, interference by
the Department in the composition of the diminishing number remaining
in the professional sector who are elected by and from the members whose
names appear in the Register is quite another matter and is an issue
that has no relevance to public interest or safety.
If this fundamental change were the will of registered pharmacists as
a whole, demonstrated by referendum, then there should be no objection
to it. It would seem, however, that this did not feature strongly in
the consultation but is a Department of Health requirement put forward
to the membership after the event with neither explanation nor justification.
As this issue has nothing to do with public interest or safety the remit
of the Department in this regard should have been challenged by Council
from the outset.
For my part, hitherto, I have neither voted for a Council member who
was over 65 years old at the time of nomination or one not practising
the profession. However, we should all be entitled to vote according
to our own preferences. We do not need any assistance or intervention
from the Department of Health in this regard. Furthermore, if this were
to be implemented some highly suitable pharmacists may be disqualified
from the Council
to the detriment of the profession and the
public.
As we now know that the non-practising
pharmacists could, in future,
comprise a substantial portion of the Register (PJ, 1/8 January, p3),
they are entitled to have their views represented by one or more of their
number sitting on the Council if so elected. There might be a significant
proportion of these who believe in the maxim “No taxation without
representation”.
By-elections where there are not enough candidates Unless the Department
of Health has a secret agenda or some more bright ideas to impose upon
the profession, the possibility of there being fewer candidates than
places is so remote as to make this item on the consultation purely hypothetical.
As usual, things were partially regretted and said to be “beyond
the control of the Society”. Of course the Society could have done
something had it the will so to do — it certainly did not need
meekly to accept an out-of-time imposition from the Department of Health.
So, since the Society is unable or, more to the point, unwilling to do
anything, what can the membership do?
In theory, at least, there is a period of 60 days from 11 December 2004
for consultation so, for my part, I have: responded directly to the consultation;
delayed my decision regarding registration this year until I am informed
whether or not I have lost all right to vote for someone from the sector
of the Register on which my name will appear; and written to the Clerk
of the Privy Council complaining about the manner of the Department of
Health intervention. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal