Council members protest at Privy Council pressure
During debate at the August
Council meeting, a number of Council members expressed their disquiet at pressure by Privy Council advisers to include
a pharmacy technician on the English Pharmacy Board (see p197) and also at the timing of the advisers' intervention in the Council's decision-making.
Opening the debate, Douglas Simpson expressed surprise at the move because
it did not chime in with the general direction of travel for the Government
indicated in the Foster report. Technicians were registrants, not members,
and the Society did not represent them. “Bearing that in mind,” he
said, “and also the fact that the Government is seeking a separation
of the representation and the regulatory role — which again is
signalled in Foster, where they ask us some time in the future to ‘clarify
the separation of the Society’s regulatory and professional lead
functions’ — it would seem that the Privy Council is putting
forward a proposal which does not align with its direction of travel
as indicated in the Foster report. It seems to me to be illogical, bearing
in mind that the Society does not represent technicians and the boards
are representative.”
Sultan Dajani said that he had always strongly believed that the profession
was not just pharmacists but technicians and support staff. But the boards
had more of a professional representative function. The English board
should itself decide whether it wants one or more technicians at a later
date. It should decide its own direction, so long as it did not contravene
Council policy.
Rose Marie Parr said that although there would be no technician member
on the Scottish board, the Society’s Scottish Executive had made
it clear that it would want to work closely with technicians. There would
also be the option to co-opt technicians — and other support staff — to
the board. She added that if the Council decided to withdraw the draft
regulations there would be real concern in Scotland about the delay and
time-scales.
Brian Curwain asked whether having a technician on the English board
would be in any way detrimental. That seemed more important than worrying
about technicalities.
David Thomson said that it was unfortunate that the Privy Council advisers
had sought the change at such a late stage. But technicians were part
of the future and were likely to become part of the structure within
the boards as the situation develops. The Council could either accept
them now or deal with it further down the line. Rejecting it would hold
up the introduction of the boards, which was a luxury the Society could
not afford.
Peter Jones said that, although Wales had already accepted a technician
place, he also understood the position of the English board. However,
the establishment of the boards had already been delayed from July to
December and any further delay was totally untenable.
Colin Ranshaw said that the profession in Wales needed to continue to
work well with the Assembly Government and the Senate. The Society was
in danger of losing credibility with the devolved administrations. He
could see no advantages in delaying, although he accepted that the Society
had a powerful argument for not including technicians.
Michael Schofield said that he saw the debate as the last gasp of an
out-of-date mindset. Disagreeing with the Privy Council’s view
would get the Council nowhere.
Graham Phillips said that he had tremendous respect for technicians,
but they had their own professional association, which the Society had
already agreed to consult, and the Council had an agreed form of words
that would allow the English Pharmacy Board to make sure it had a technician
voice.
He added that he was profoundly disappointed with the timing of the Privy
Council advisers’ intervention. It was a form of brinkmanship.
In the negotiations over the new Charter it had been clear that there
was a separation between members and registrants. He certainly could
not accept the proposal.
Stephen Denyer said that the Privy Council was looking beyond the current
horizons. It was saying that pharmacy technicians would in future be
integrally involved and it wanted that reflected now. A technician member
would not perturb the operation of the board but would reflect a healthy
attitude for the future.
John Gentle said that he too was deeply disappointed with the timing
of the Privy Council decision, which prevented the Council from fully
digesting the implications of what it was being asked to do.
Andrew Gush said that with a technician on the board its role would be
to represent pharmacy, not pharmacists. That would encourage pharmacists
to seek another organisation to represent them.
The Secretary and Registrar said that Council members should be careful
not to define the role of the boards too narrowly, because they would
be intimately involved in developing practice. They would also represent
the profession to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the
UK Parliament in its responsibility for purely English matters.
Ray Jobling said that a technician on the English board would be a positive
step, contributing to the process of making pharmacy and pharmacy practice
fit for the future.
Davan Eustace said that there were other sectors of the profession that
would not be represented on the board. If they could feed into the issues
without being represented on the national board, why not technicians
too?
Mr Phillips asked whether it might be possible to find a way forward
by discussion with the Privy Council rather than by imposition. A compromise
that all could all sign up to was preferable a decision that a significant
minority of the Council would strongly oppose.
John Hanlon said that it was not realistic to go back and negotiate with
the Privy Council. The choice was either to accept the change or not
to go ahead with the regulations, thus delaying the establishment of
all three boards.
Mr Gentle said that he expected Mr Hanlon was right in that the Privy
Council would not change its mind, but the Council did have the right
to go back to the Privy Council and say that it was not entirely happy.
The Secretary and Registrar said that, whether or not the Council voted
in favour of the proposal, the Council could express its concerns to
the Privy Council, particularly at the lateness and the imposition.
Mr Wells said that he was disappointed with the process and agreed that
the Council’s concerns should be voiced.
The Vice-President then put the proposed amendment to the regulations
to the vote.
After the proposal had been carried, Mr Phillips said that he wished
to express his dissent and reserve his right to speak against the decisions.
Mr Dajani and Mr Gentle said that they too wished to record their dissent.
The Secretary and Registrar reminded the Council that once a decision
had been taken it was normal for a body of governance to act corporately.
There was provision for those who feel strongly to express their dissent
and to act accordingly in the future but it was normally a rare occurrence.
Item 11 of the Council code of conduct said: “Members of Council
should support in public the policies of Council. Where a member of Council
feels compelled publicly to oppose a Council policy the Council should
be informed in advance. The member of Council may then express his or
her personal views on the matter, but in doing so must first explain
the Council policy and the reasons for the Council’s decision.
Members must in any case avoid any action that would undermine confidence
in the competence of the Council and its members or in the Council’s
decision-making process.”
The Vice-President asked anyone who felt similarly to indicate. Sultan
Dajani, Dorothy Drury, Davan Eustace, John Gentle, Andrew Gush, Graham
Phillips, Douglas Simpson and Stephen Wells all raised their hands.
Mr Gentle stated that he had no intention of actively campaigning against
the decision, but he would be talking to Society branches over the next
few months. If he was asked how he had voted, he would simply like to
reserve the right to explain his position and support the original Council
decision, which Council members seemed to have forgotten.
The Vice-President confirmed that the Society would write to the Privy
Council’s with the expressions of dissatisfaction that the Council
had raised.
Answering a question, the Society’s head of corporate governance,
Christine Gray, said that nothing would have prevented the Privy Council
from making a similar change to the Scottish Pharmacy Board, but it had
confirmed that it was content with the composition of that board.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal