President urges members to make views known on national boards
The President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Hemant Patel, is urging members to make their views known on whether the Society should set up a national board for England and replace the Scottish and Welsh Executives with national boards.
A request for members’ opinions is set out in a consultation document, “National
boards for England, Wales and Scotland: the future”, which members
should now have received. The document was drawn up after the Council
received a report from the devolution review group, “Devolution:
a framework for the future”, at its February meeting.
The main recommendation made by the review group, which is chaired by
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, was the establishment of three national boards.
The Council was minded to accept the report’s recommendations but
agreed to consult the membership before making a final decision.
Recommended functions of the national boards
The recommendation of the devolution review group is that each
of the national boards would, in each country, have the following
five functions:
· Provide strategic leadership and support for pharmacy
practice development
· Assist development of Council policy and its implementation
and develop and implement policy specific to that national board’s
country
· Promote pharmacy and its contribution to health
· Provide professional advice to government, its agencies, NHS
bodiesand other health and social care organisations
· Support the Society’s branches |
The consultation
seeks members’ views in five main areas:
· It asks whether members are in favour of setting up national boards
in any or all of the three home countries and seeks ideas for the names
should be given to the boards
· It seeks members’ views on the five prime functions proposed
for the national boards by the review group (see Panel) and asks whether
the boards should have any other functions
· It asks for views on how to achieve effective representation across
the profession on the national boards. In particular, it asks whether
the boards should be constituted solely by election or should include
appointed or co-opted members to ensure a spread of expertise. Specifically,
it asks whether there should be places for pharmacists from different
sectors of practice, for pharmacists from different geographical locations
within a country or for lay members
· It seeks views on the risks to the Society’s profile and integrity
should the review group’s recommendations not be implemented
· It asks how national boards could best support the Society’s
branches and, through them, the profession
Finally, the consultation document asks for comments on any issues that
are not covered by the first five questions. Although the devolution
review group’s remit does not extend to overseas pharmacists, the
Society also welcomes views about how members in the Isle of Man and
the Channel Islands, and overseas members in other countries, can be
accommodated within the Society’s future structure.
Commenting on the consultation, Mr Patel said: “This is the members’ opportunity
to have their say on a significant and important change to how the Society
is structured, in particular how it relates to pharmacists and other
professions and organisations in England, Scotland and Wales. It is imperative
that members come forward and tell the Council what they think of the
proposals and help shape the future of the Society.”
An abridged version of the consultation document has been published in
The Journal (PJ, 4 June, p687 PDF 90K) and the full
document is available to download from the devolution
section of the Society’s website.
Members can also download a response form that can be returned by e-mail
or post to the Society’s devolution project manager,
Michele Savage. Members have until 18 July to respond.
The devolution review group’s report, is also available from the
Society’s website and was also published in an abridged
form in
The Journal (PJ, 12 February, p185).
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal