All convictions to be declared on retention fee form
Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians will be asked to declare all criminal convictions on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's annual retention fee form. The October
Council meeting rejected an alternative option
of producing a list of “non-declarable” offences.
The Council agreed that members and registrants should be required to
declare all criminal convictions, cautions, conditional discharges, bindovers,
etc, that have not previously been declared to the Society’s registrar.
Guidance will be published to help people understand what they are required
to declare and overcome any confusion about what counts as an offence.
It was also agreed that all full convictions would be referred to the
chairman of the Statutory Committee for a decision on whether or not
the matter should proceed to inquiry. All other matters declared would
be notified to the Infringements Committee for its consideration, unless
it decides otherwise. The Infringements Committee already has the power
to issue guidance to the Fitness to Practise and Legal Affairs Directorate
on criteria that must be met before any case is referred to it.
The Council chose this option because it allows for consistency, avoids
any element of self-assessment by the pharmacist or registrant and ensures
that all declarations will be dealt with in a transparent manner, ensuring
public protection and allowing the Society to withstand external scrutiny
by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence and/or judicial review.
Philip Green, Deputy Registrar and Director of Education and Registration,
told the Council that there was an important principle that individuals
should not be allowed to decide for themselves what is appropriate and
what is not appropriate to declare. The Fitness to Practise and Legal
Affairs Directorate was developing guidance to help overcome people’s
understandable concern over not knowing what to do with things like parking
tickets.
There were also some difficulties between England and Scotland in terms
of what may or may not be classed as a criminal offence. So there needed
to be some clarity to help people fill in their forms properly.
Mandy Lavin (Director of Fitness to Practise and Legal Affairs) said
that the Infringements Committee was to decide its own policy on what
matters it needed to give a degree of scrutiny to. It did not want regulation
gone mad. It did not want people worried about parking tickets, but it
needed to ensure that it discharged its regulatory responsibilities in
the public interest appropriately.
She added that the Society was on a journey with lots of other professions,
and the over-arching regulator was trying to assist all of them to have
a consistent, coherent policy in which to protect the public.
David Gomez (legal adviser, Fitness to Practise and Legal Affairs Directorate)
said that from a legal point of view and a drafting point of view, the
best option was to require every offence to be declared and provide guidance.
What was suggested for the guidance was a clear indication that the Infringements
Committee would not want to see any of a defined list of minor offences.
Then, on a case-by-case basis, as the Infringements Committee developed
its case law and decided that certain other matters were not serious
enough to refer, further guidance could be added over time.
The form would just gather information, and a declaration did not automatically
mean ending up before Statutory Committee. The Infringements Committee’s
referral criteria would indicate whether a matter was serious enough
to refer. The key was flexibility. For example, if someone persistently
flouted the law and built up a series of convictions, that might indicate
problems.
Mr Gomez added that the Infringements Committee was to meet on 25 October
and would decide on its guidance.
Responding to comments from several Council members that matter such
as speeding and parking offences should not have to be declared, Lorna
Jacobs said that the way in which people used their cars did reflect,
at some level, their attitude to the rest of society. She added: “I
have a conviction for speeding at 103mph, so I am not being holier-than-thou,
but it does reflect your attitude to the safety of others in opposition
to your own joy, and that is a relevant matters in terms of public interest.”
The Council then agreed to a requirement for the declaration of all offences,
with additional guidance being published.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal