The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7366 p300
10 September 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

Three Statutory Committee decisions “flawed”

Three Royal Pharmaceutical Society Statutory Committee decisions between April 2004 and March 2005 were flawed in the view of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence.

In one of the cases, involving a pharmacist with an alcohol problem, a CHRE case review meeting resolved to ask the High Court to overturn the Statutory Committee’s finding. But the decision was not implemented because the Statutory Committee reopened the case and the pharmacist agreed to stop practising (PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p895).

This information is revealed in a CHRE paper (PDF 100K) by Jonathan Montgomery, professor of health law at Southampton University. It shows that each of the other two cases gave cause for concern about the Society’s regulatory practice. But they were not referred to the High Court because the CHRE believed that it would achieve more by persuading the Society to do things differently in future.

Mandie Lavin, director of fitness to practise and legal affairs at the Society, said that there is little that the Society can do to influence Statutory Committee decisions and that this is one of the profession’s strengths. She added that the CHRE did not understand the Statutory Committee’s independence.

“We’re keen to collaborate and co-operate with our external regulator and are always looking to enhance the quality of decision-making,” she said. “However, our committee is totally independent of the Society. It is unique among health regulators in having a legally qualified chairman and it includes no Council members.”

Expressing concern that the Statutory Committee’ strength could be diminished by future regulatory changes, Mrs Lavin said that the planned Section 60 Order that will modernise pharmacy regulation would remove from the Privy Council the responsibility for appointing the chairman.

“Our ability to withstand scrutiny is strengthened by having a Privy Council appointed chairman who, like a High Court judge, is beyond influence.”