The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7372 p529
22 October 2005

Society summary

Council forced to defer decision on special 50-year retention fee

Plans to introduce a greatly reduced retention fee for non-practising pharmacists who have been on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Register for at least 50 years have been deferred.

At the October Council meeting, the Council agreed not to forward the proposal to the Privy Council for approval after hearing that advisers to the Privy Council had difficulties with the proposal and had raised a number of questions. Among other things, they had advised that a reduced fee for those who have been on the register for 50 years could discriminate against certain groups of pharmacists who are not in a position to have 50 years’ unbroken registration.

The Secretary and Registrar told the Council that the proposed fee scale for 2006 had been notified to the Privy Council at the time when it was gazetted in The Pharmaceutical Journal (PJ, 13 August, p211). The Society had received information that the Privy Council’s advisers were content with the proposed fee scale apart from having difficulty with the proposed 50-year reduction. They considered that it needed more thought and should be deferred until such time as the Council had answered a number of questions they had raised.

Miss Lewis added that the Officers and the Resource Management Committee had both examined the issue and concluded that the proposal needed more consideration and might be difficult to achieve for 2006.

The President said that the will of the Council was clear, as was the will of the Privy Council to be helpful. But what was also clear was that the time scales were not with the Council. It was regrettable that people would not benefit from a change that the Council so much wanted to see happen in 2006.

The Secretary and Registrar reminded the Council that the proposal had arisen during the August Council meeting and had not gone through the detailed consideration that had applied to the other proposed fees.

Bob Michell said that the membership was clear where the Council wanted to go, which was to provide an appropriate concession. The membership would be equally clear why it is difficult or impossible to do it this year, as had been hoped. The Privy Council’s advisers had equally powerful counter-arguments, but it was important to do it properly rather than hurriedly.

The Council reaffirmed its intention to pursue its proposal and resolved to seek acceptable ways forward for the 2007 retention fee cycle. The Council then agreed to seek Privy Council approval for the other proposed fees for 2006.

Because the closing date for comments was just after the Council meeting, the Council agreed to authorise the President to approve the sealing and sending on of the resolution.

The Secretary and Registrar reported that the Society had so far received six comments on the proposed fee scale and there had been six letters in The Journal.

Graham Phillips pointed out that the August decision to seek a concession for long-serving members had had a direct effect on the proposed fee for practising members. The Council should reflect the withdrawal of the concession by reducing the practising members’ fee.

The Secretary and Registrar said that that was not possible because any new fee level would require the regazetting of the fee scale.

The President said that Mr Phillips had raised an important point. The Council would take the point into account when setting the budget for 2007. That was the only practical way forward.

The Council also agreed to alter the proposed Byelaw amendment to clarify the proposed fee payable by pharmacists outside England, Scotland or Wales who are registered in their local jurisdiction. As gazetted, the proposal is that such pharmacists shall pay a fee of £106 if they “are not required by local law or practice to be registered with the Society in order to practise within that jurisdiction”. The alteration makes it clear that the £106 fee also applies to overseas pharmacists who do not practise in any jurisdiction.

Commenting on the reduced fee for long-serving members after the Council meeting, the President said: “We are of course disappointed that we are not in a position to take this proposal forward for 2006 but the members can rest assured that the Council is determined to find an acceptable way forward for the future. We will be working with the Privy Council to ensure that this amended proposal is brought to the Society’s Council for approval as soon as possible.”