Health of Society’s balance sheet improving, but no room for complacency, Treasurer tells AGM
The Treasurer: fee structure review |
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s 2004 budget has been managed successfully and the health of the balance sheet is improving, the Treasurer, John Jolley, told the annual
general meeting on 24 May.
However, he said, the Society could not be complacent. For a number of
years an imbalance between expenditure and income had affected the reserves.
The Society had to review operating expenses to ensure that, without
increasing fees disproportionately, it could react to potential changes
resulting from devolution and the review of structures that would be
undertaken by the new Council over the next 12 months.
He added that the Society was conscious of the debate generated by the
new fee structure, and the Council would review all the issues before
setting the fees for 2006.
The Council, as trustees of the Benevolent Fund, would also review the
future of the fund, with a view to ensuring that it objectively and effectively
carries out its duties for the widest possible benefit of pharmacists.
The Treasurer made those comments when summing up after detailed presentations
on the financial statements had been given by him, by Bernard Kelly,
director of finance and resources, and by Graham Duncan, financial controller.
Answering a question about a 32 per cent increase in overall directors’ salary
costs between 2003 and 2004, the Treasurer said that the figure reflected
the fact that four directors were not appointed until late in 2003. The
actual salary increase for directors in 2004 amounted to 3 per cent.
In response to a question from Bruce Rhodes (Cotswolds), the President,
Nicholas Wood, said that there had been no policy to drive people from
the Register — just the opposite. If those who were non-practising
decided to leave the Register, that was their choice, but there had not
been the large numbers some people had feared.
Answering a question from John Gentle, the President said that the Society
was unable to offer any financial support for the four pharmacists who
had incurred significant costs in a legal action against the Society
and individual Council members. The Society’s responsibilities
were towards all its members, many of whom would not have supported the
court action. That may not be the answer Mr Gentle wanted to hear, but
it was the fact.
In response to a question from David Thomas (Thames Valley), Mr Kelly
said that the management of the Benevolent Fund’s investments was
in the hands of a professional investment manager. The investments were
assessed every day, although they were not traded often because most
investments were held not for income but for long-term benefit. On average,
the Society would expect the return from the Stock Market to be about
3 to 3.5 percent, excluding long-term capital gains.
Julienne Johnson (Glasgow and West of Scotland) asked for an explanation
of a reported reduction in branch and regional expenditure in 2004.
Mr Kelly said that the figures Mrs Johnson referred to were the costs
of managing the membership department at Lambeth, which had decreased
by 5 per cent. The funding for branches had not fallen in 2004, and there
was no intention to reduce branch funding in 2005 or any future year.
Answering a question from Steven Curtis (Harrow and Hillingdon) about
a reference to being preparing for “financial surprises”,
the President said that one possible surprise would be a decision by
the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence to challenge a decision
of the Statutory Committee. Fighting such a case through the courts could
be a significant surprise cost on the Society’s funds.
The Secretary and Registrar added that the CHRE had already reviewed
some Statutory Committee decisions. It had not referred any to the courts,
but the potential was there.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal