Regulatory review could reduce elections to the Society's Council
Regulators with other roles
The review papers draw attention to bodies, such as the Society,
that also have roles other than regulation.
Those in a similar position include the Pharmaceutical Society
of Northern Ireland, the General Chiropractic Council and the General
Osteopathic Council. Each of these is charged in law or Royal Charter
to promote the professions.
“There is no suggestion that they are expected to put the good of
the profession before that of the public — the reverse, in
fact — but this departure from the general regulatory model
has caused uncertainty and dispute at times,” the review
papers say. They note that the Society has set out its case for
how the combined role serves the public benefit. |
Some pharmacist members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council could in future be appointed if the Department of Health's review of non-medical regulation continues on its current course. Such a change would need the Charter to be amended because currently it allows only for elections.
Papers circulated earlier this month to members of the reference group
guiding the review — under the direction of DoH director of workforce
Andrew Foster — say that medical and non-medical regulators should
find a common way forward, following the Shipman Inquiry recommendation
that elected members should not be in the majority on the General Medical
Council. As a result, members of all health regulators — both lay
and professional — should be selected by the Public Appointments
Commission and appointed by the Privy Council.
On the subject of professional majorities, the papers say: “… Changing the number of professionals on (any) Council is not the point.
It is the preponderance of elected members which has at times had harmful
effects. … Needless to say, such a change could be seen by professional
bodies as an attack on democracy, but such views would probably not command
public support.”
The review is also moving towards recommending that regulators lose their
decision-making role in misconduct cases. Instead, they would become
investigators and prosecutors. Adjudication would become the responsibility
of a number of external committees that the review believes should converge
over time to a single adjudicating body for all the non-medical professions.
Further convergence is also envisaged, with the establishment of a single
set of rules for all regulators, instead of separate orders under Section
60 of the Health Act 1999.
The review papers say that only one major issue remains on which the
reference group has failed to reach a conclusion — merging regulators.
It notes that most, but not all, the regulators under review have rejected
radical restructuring in favour of harmonising rules and procedures through
Section 60 Orders.
The reference group met for further discussions on 8 November. Mr Foster
intends to report the outcome of his review to Ministers early in 2006. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader