Council pressured into including a technician on English board
Draft regulations governing the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's future national pharmacy boards for England, Scotland and Wales are to be amended so that one of the proposed 12 elected pharmacists on the English board will be replaced by a registered pharmacy technician.
The Council made its decision at the August
Council meeting after a substantial
debate. Advisers to the Privy Council had asked for the change, stating
that without it they would be unable to advise the Privy Council to accept
the draft
regulations as gazetted (PJ, 10 June, p703).
No change was proposed for Wales or Scotland: the Welsh board is already
to include an elected technician, at the request of the Welsh Executive,
and in Scotland there are no current plans for pharmacy technicians to
be regulated by the Society.
The Council heard that the office had explained to the Privy Council
advisers that it was Council policy that the English board should not
include a place for a pharmacy technician. Although they would be regulated
by the Society, technicians were not members of the Society and the boards
would not undertake any regulatory function.
The office had also drawn the attention of the Privy Council advisers
to a statement agreed by the Council in June on ensuring effective lay
and pharmacy technician involvement in the work of the English Pharmacy
Board.
Nevertheless, the Privy Council advisers were clear in their view that,
without the requested change, they could not advise that ministers would
be content with the proposed Regulations. The rationale for the change
was that pharmacy technicians are an integral part of the pharmacy “family” and
of pharmacy service delivery. They are also integral to the redesign
of pharmacy services and will need to feel that are part of the redesign
process. And they will have more direct patient contact and more impact
on care (hence the need for their registration) and therefore their views
on practice should be heard.
The advisers saw the Council’s statement on lay and technician
involvement in the work of the board as a step in the right direction
but commented that it had no legal force and could not bind a future
Council, or even the current Council, except in a moral sense.
The Council was advised that if the draft regulations were not adjusted
to accommodate the requested change they would be unlikely to receive
Privy Council approval. A delay to approval would mean a delay to the
planned timetable for establishing the national pharmacy boards. If the
Council wished to withdraw or make substantial changes to the draft regulations
it would then be necessary to gazette new draft regulations, which would
cause an additional delay of at least six months.
The Society’s head of corporate governance, Christine Gray, said
that it would not be possible to approve the draft regulations for Wales
and Scotland now and rethink the composition of the English board.
It was therefore recommended that the Council approve amended draft regulations
that allowed for one of the 12 elected members of the English board to
be a registered pharmacy technician.
After debate, the proposal was put to the meeting and was approved. Seven
pharmacist Council members voted against the proposal.
Earlier the Council had agreed two less controversial amendments to the
draft Regulations. The first was to add the words “eligible for
election and” before the words “elected in accordance with
a scheme agreed by the Council” in Paragraphs 2(1)(a), 2(2)(a)
and 2(3)(a). Advice had been received that such a change was necessary
to allow the election scheme to restrict eligibility for some places
on the English Pharmacy Board to pharmacists practising in particular
sectors of practice.
The other small drafting amendment was the inclusion of a new Paragraph
1(3) stating: “The boards shall be regarded as committees of the
Council for the purposes of the Charter.” This change was to clarify
that Council members serving on national boards may receive attendance
fees and out-of-pocket expenses under Article 4(3) of the Charter, which
permits such payments in respect of meetings and other functions of the
Council and its committees.
Finally, the Council agreed to authorise either the President or the
Vice-President to approve the draft regulations are the end of the gazetting
period, which was still a few days away.
Debate, p198
Board election
scheme, p199
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal