PJ Online | PJ Letters

We would like to take the opportunity to respond to the justified concerns of Ray Fitzpatrick (PJ, 23 April, p488) and other hospital colleagues who express feelings of disenfranchisement following the recent Council elections.

It is our intent to allay their concerns and fears for the future of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

The Council has considered in depth the practicality of having reserved places for each “specialism” in pharmacy practice but this had been rejected on the grounds that it would be impossible to achieve some kind of proportional representation when there would be only 14 unreserved elected seats available — the numbers simply will not allow it. However, we would invite hospital colleagues to look at the expertise of all 17 elected members of Council. There is, indeed, both hospital representation and hospital experience. As “pharmacy politicians” we have contact with many pharmacists across all sectors of the profession. The truth is that members from every sector, community pharmacy included, feel equally disenfranchised. That, in essence, is why we stood for Council — we intend to change things for the better.

We intend to ask the Council to consult more widely than before by calling upon the expertise of colleagues across the profession. The Council and the supporting structures, which will evolve in due course, will need input from a variety of sources.

During the past year, besides restoring “representation” to the heart of the Charter, which is fundamental, we have been pleased to be involved with supporting and strengthening the four membership groups (hospital, industrial, veterinary and community). Each group now, and we hope in the future, will have a much greater voice at Lambeth, and the restoration of the various newsletters is, we promise, much more than mere window dressing. We have sought, and been given, reassurance that it is business as usual for each of these groups. They will continue while Council considers its future practice and working structures. Members will be meaningfully consulted about the inevitable changes. During the year, and following a brainstorming session, the Hospital Pharmacists Group presented its key issues to the Society’s Practice Committee. Unsurprisingly, what stood out was the commonality of their issues with the rest of the profession. We would like to see similar sessions taking place at each of the Society’s other membership groups. This will better inform both resource allocation and the work streams of the practice directorate. It is our view that there is one glaring omission: there is no representative committee for primary care pharmacists. This specialism is growing both in numbers and influence. We would welcome members’ views on this.

For the record, we had intended to field both a hospital and a primary care Save Our Society candidate. Unfortunately, both had to withdraw at short notice due to personal and professional pressures.

Finally, we would now like to move the debate on from “who sits on Council as of right?” to “how can Council best represent the interests of all the profession?”.

We hope members will wish to contribute towards this debate, either in the columns of the PJ or by writing direct to us at Lambeth.

We know that the Society has a history of being outstanding as a regulatory body. Now is a golden opportunity to bring the representative function up to the same standard. We hope the members will continue to join us in the debate.

Graham Phillips
Council representative, Veterinary Pharmacists and Hospital Pharmacists Groups
Davan Eustace
Council representative, Community Pharmacists Group
John Jolley
Council member, Industrial Pharmacists Group
Gerald Alexander
Chairman, Practice Committee
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

We are clearly not alone

From Dr M. J. S. Burden, FRPharmS, and Mrs V. E. L. Burden, FRPharmS

We are clearly not alone in seeing the Save Our Society grouping as having a single issue agenda. Many of your correspondents have used the phrase and expressed their concerns.

Our major concern is that the newly elected Council appears to put pharmacists before patients and the public. This is not the hallmark of a profession nor is it the best way to achieve the advancement of Pharmacy in the present regulatory climate. If the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is to survive it really must show the greatest commitment to the patient.

Andrew Burr may well be right (PJ, 23 April, p487): what purpose will be served if the Society has been saved but the profession has been lost?

Michael and Vela Burden
Leicester, Leicestershire

To suggest a split is misleading

From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS

It is a sad fact of pharmacy politics these days that some of our (now erstwhile) pharmacy leaders suffer from selective memory syndrome. Andrew Burr, in his recent letter (PJ, 23 April, p487) has suggested that because of the Save Our Society campaign, the Government will now take regulation away from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and “mark my words it will” he adds prophetically.

Can he not recall, as the then communication lead Council member for the Society’s doomed initial Charter submission (December 2003), what members were saying at countless meetings including two successive branch representatives’ meetings, two annual general meetings, a special general meeting, numerous Charter roadshow meetings and also a High Court hearing?

What they were saying was that if, in the future, the Government should take regulation away from the Society, as it was its legal right to do, for whatever reason, at any time, then the structure of the initially proposed Charter, would also enable the Government to take away 160 years worth of Society assets, leaving the membership with nothing.

The response given was that this would never happen.

One of the aims of the SOS campaign, which was successfully achieved, was to ensure that the Charter could be suitably amended to ensure that, should partition ever occur, the assets could be protected and that they could then be used by the members to fund a membership organisation.

Mr Burr and all those Council members and staff who were determined to get the initial unacceptable Charter through refused to act on these concerns and decided instead to ignore them. Consequently this led to their wholesale rejection in recent Council elections and may have left a question mark over the future of the administration.

That Mr Burr should now attempt to prophesy that the dual role of the Society is to be split due to the achievements of the SOS campaign is deliberately misleading. He will most certainly know, that it is the Fifth Report on the Shipman Inquiry that has called for a centralisation of health care regulation. Thankfully, Mr Burr and many of his colleagues are no longer responsible for the decision-making process at Lambeth. This has been handed by an unequivocal mandate to pharmacists who want to ensure that the members are treated with some respect.

If history teaches us anything in this instance, it will surely be that the Charter debacle is an object lesson in pharmacy leadership. Good leadership is about ensuring that a chosen destination has enough supporters on board to make the journey viable.

Sadly, in recent years many experienced Council members failed to observe this principle and have now paid the ultimate price.

Mark Koziol
Birmingham

The electorate may still not get what it wants

From Ms A. Winter, MRPharmS

I was happy that the Save our Society candidates were elected en masse in the recent election to the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Perhaps I am naive, but I thought that the election result would mean that there would be nobody left who could cause the same problems for our profession again. However, in a recent PJ, Coll Michaels said that despite the election result the Lambeth executive still remains (PJ, 23 April, p488).

Having recently watched an episode of “Yes Minister”, I am left thinking that it may not be the Council of our Society, but the Sir Humphreys of Lambeth who may run our profession. If that is the case then the SOS election result might come to nothing because their activities could be derailed by an unsympathetic “civil service”.

This problem may need to be resolved because otherwise, despite the landslide victory for SOS, their efforts might be thwarted and the electorate may still not get what it wants.

Alyson Winter
St Neots, Cambridgeshire

Senior staff should consider their positions

From Mr K. Patel, MRPharmS

If any doubt had remained about the legitimacy of the Save Our Society campaign and the mandate of the SOS members of Council to reform the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, such doubt must have been removed following the recent Council election results.

The Society seems to have suffered numerous failures of governance and representation in recent years, including the debacle of the President’s flat, the Charter, and registration fee rises and resultant resignations from the Register. Throughout this time politicians have come and gone, carrying the blame for the disaffection of the membership. The only constant throughout has been the executive: the senior members of staff of the Society. It is they who seem to have led and guided the Council down this poorly chosen path. Had such failures of governance and confidence affected any publicly quoted company the chief executive would long since have resigned or been removed. Those responsible at Lambeth should immediately consider their positions.

Kiran Patel
Luton, Bedfordshire

NICHOLAS WOOD, President, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

As President, I must challenge your correspondents, who seem not to have noticed the events that have occurred following the past two Council elections (or indeed my own election as President).

The 2004/2005 Council significantly revised the new Royal Charter prior to it being granted, all the motions passed at the 2003 special general meeting have been progressed and a commitment has been made (PJ, 12 February, p191) to re-examine issues around registration and fees. It is nonsense to suggest that the Council is somehow being thwarted or is unable to fulfil its obligation to manage the affairs of the Society. In this function, the Council has had the benefit of expert staff who have served successive Councils with dedication and impartiality. Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt that the Society’s staff will also continue to serve the new Council to the best of their ability. Both staff performance and the Society’s governance are subject to rigorous appraisal and I have complete confidence in the ability of the staff to implement the rightful decisions of Council. It is unfortunate for both staff morale and for the profession that correspondents criticise the Society’s staff and governance procedures without substantiating their allegations.

I welcome Department of Health circulars

From Mr D. W. E. Eckley, MRPharmS

Philip Green, deputy secretary and registrar of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, asks for views on the question raised by Philip Crabtree on the wisdom of including non-practising pharmacists on the mailing list submitted to the Department of Health (PJ, 30 April, p518). I am happy to oblige — and I take the opposite view to Mr Crabtree.

For goodness sake, Mr Crabtree, the fact that we have retired from the profession in which we have been engaged for a lifetime surely does not meant that we should abandon our interest in gleaning as much information as possible on current professional developments.

For my part, I avidly welcome any accurate information on pharmacy and medicine. In this context I am greatly indebted to The Pharmaceutical Journal for its articles and to my local branch for its monthly lectures.

I strongly urge that the current situation vis-à-vis the Department of Health is maintained.

Don Eckley
Solihull, West Midlands

Unused potential in the Society’s branch and regional network

From Mr J. Burton, MRPharmS

It is encouraging that a motion has been put forward for debate at this year’s annual general meeting, calling for increased support and resources for local branches, the regions and the wider membership. Not a bad idea, I think.

Whatever your views concerning the events of the past few months, few could deny that a rift currently seems to exist between Lambeth and the ordinary members of the Society. Our regulatory and representative body has, at the very least, an image problem and, at worst, a credibility problem. One only needs to read the letters pages of the PJ each week to know all is not well.

However, I do not subscribe to the “it is all the Society’s fault” point of view. It is too easy to point the finger at “that lot at Lambeth”. The members of the Society need to re-engage with their professional body, and members need to accept that they need to take some of the responsibility for this. Roughly four out of five pharmacists did not vote in the recent Council elections. We cannot have it both ways.

The newly elected members of Council now have a chance to revolutionise the way in which members interact with the Society, and I believe a bottom up approach is required. More devolved resources for the branches and regions and a beefed up membership department would be a good start.

I would also support more recognition and central support for the British Pharmaceutical Student’s Association, the Society’s official student body. It would seem fair to assume that the more positive contact pharmacy students and preregistration trainees have with the Society, the more likely they are to engage throughout their professional careers.

Modest but formal remuneration for branch secretaries and increased funding to enable branches to support fully their members’ CPD activities are, in my opinion, two essential changes that need to occur. There is much unused potential in the Society’s branch and regional network and for too long we have relied on the goodwill of members and not much else to ensure the Society reaches pharmacists at a local level.

If we get serious about helping local branches realise their potential, the pharmacists in those branches might just help the Society realise its own.

Jonathan Burton
Stirling

Animal Farm

From Mr P. W. Pound, MRPharmS

Members should not concern themselves unnecessarily with the new Council. It will be just like ‘Animal Farm’. Within a short time, the new Council will become indistinguishable from the old.

P. W. Pound
Cottingham, East Yorkshire

Need to know who at the Society is practising and non-practising

From Mr B. Paige, MRPharmS

From time to time I have contacted the staff of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society about matters relating to the practice of pharmacy. In the past I have always assumed that the person I was speaking to was a registered pharmacist and, therefore, qualified to answer my queries.

With the increasing use of non-pharmacist staff and the new practising/non-practising Register, I now have a problem. I presume that anyone who is a non-pharmacist or a non-practising pharmacist would be prohibited by the new regulations from offering any opinion on any matter relating to the practice of pharmacy. Now I need to know whether the person at Lambeth I am speaking to is legally able to answer my query.

Would it be possible for you to publish in your columns a list of staff members at the Society who are registered as practising pharmacists and who are, therefore, qualified to answer queries relating to the practice of pharmacy?

Barrie Paige
Guernsey

ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

The number of pharmacist employed by the Society has increased in recent years. Currently there are around 90.

All pharmacists in Corporate and Strategic Development, Education and Registration, Fitness to Practise, and Practice and Quality Improvement are on the practising register, as are the pharmacists in the technical information centre, the Secretary and Registrar and five of the Directors, including those for Scotland and Wales.

All staff, whether pharmacists or not advise within the scope of their work areas and refer on other queries.

Anyone can check the status of a pharmacist by logging onto the website

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Birdsgrove House)