| · Department of Health
· Work pressures (2)
· Homoeopathy (2)
· Controlled drugs
· Safety
· Oxygen service
· Compliance aids
· Needle exchange
· Paracetamol
· Smoking cessation
· The profession (2)
· Retention fees (4)
· The Society (2)
· Public image
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
Still no news on the deferred concessionary rate
From Mr E. J. Naylor, FRPharmS
At the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council meeting in August
2005 it was decided to seek an increase in retention fees, no doubt,
in part, to pay for the increases in Council members’ daily attendance
fees, but also for the administration of the new activities open to the
practising pharmacist. Among the increases was a 30 per cent increase
from £46 to £60 for the non-practising pharmacist, that did
not seem at all equitable, but it was softened by a concessionary rate
for those with 50 years or more on the Register.
However, at the October Council meeting it was decided that the proposed
concessionary rate would be withdrawn following comment from the Privy
Council advisers, who said that it should be deferred until such time
as our Council had answered a number of questions that they had raised.
There was a time when we were in charge of our own house, but as has
been said many times, we are now in the hands of politicians and outside
bodies. The will of our Council was clear, as shown by the President,
Hemant Patel, who after the October meeting, assured members that the
Council was determined to find a way forward for the future and an amended
proposal would be brought to the Society’s Council for approval
as soon as possible.
Promises, promises, promises — 10 months have gone by and, as far
as I am aware, not a word. In five months’ time fees will be due
again and we are no further forward, so much so that more non-practising
older members, incensed with last year’s 30 per cent increase and
the apparent impotence of the Council, could well be resigning. So, those
70 to 90-year-olds must put pen to paper and ask “Why no progress?” We
need to know — what are the questions from the Privy Council advisers
and what are our Council’s answers?
Having been promised more open government, let us have some of it.
Eric Naylor
Warrington, Cheshire
Little allowance for pharmacists overseas
From Mr C. S. Forster, MRPharmS
I read Paul McMurtrie’s letter (PJ, 22 July, p106) with great
interest and sympathy.
The new rigid fee structure makes little allowance for pharmacists who
wish to remain members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society but for various
reasons are not working full-time in the UK. Mr McMurtrie is out of the
country for study reasons and I now live and work in Alberta, Canada.
After many years on the Register I have come to accept that the annual
payment of Society fees is just another 12 months subscription to the
PJ. I do not think I am alone in that belief.
I am sure Mr McMurtrie will
re-evaluate his desire to remain on the Register after he has finished
his medical degree. I suspect I know what his decision will be.
Craig Forster
Alberta,
Canada
Non-practising fee excessive
From Mr K. J. Knight, FRPharmS
I refer to member’s retention fees for 2007 (PJ, 12 August, p199).
Last year the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council put forward
to the Society’s Privy Council, a proposal to allow a special,
low fee for non-practising members who have been on the Register for
more than 50 years. The Privy Council turned it down on the grounds that
it was unfair to those who were late, first time registrants.
A much higher fee for 2006 of £60 was therefore promulgated, on
what was said to be a one off basis, accompanied by assurances that the
proposal would be favourably received for 2007. It was not — the
fee for non-practising members for 2007, without any explanation, is £64
(an increase of 6.66 per cent, 2.47 times the rate of inflation and the
increase in state pensions).
I would remind members that up to 1989, members over 70 years of age
paid nothing to stay on the Register. I remember this because I was 70
years old in 1989.
Kenneth Knight
Crewkerne, Somerset
What do I get for my money?
From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS
The decision made by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
to continue lumping retired members into the non-practising category of
membership, despite previous promises to reconsider the status of that
group, seems likely to bring to an end to my 53 years of Society membership.
I thought that there was a reasonable chance of staying on the Register
until I shuffled off this mortal coil but the advisers to the Privy Council
seem to have held up a hoop too many for Council to jump through.
It would help me to decide whether or not to continue as a member if someone
could tell me what I get for my money as a non-practising member. I receive
The Pharmaceutical Journal but the only sections which interest me these
days are the letters column and the obituaries. There is little of relevance
or interest outside these apart from the occasional “Onlooker”.
It could also be a vehicle for expressing opinions on a limited number
of topics along with the annual general meeting and branch representatives’ meetings.
I know that I cannot stand for Council, although someone ought to represent
the views of the retired — a substantial and increasing minority
of the membership who may still retain an interest in the future of the
profession. Yes, I can vote but not for my own kind, who are not allowed
to stand.
So, £64 for a publication which tells me when another friend and
colleague has left this world and to read letters which may be on matters
of interest to me? Who will persuade me that it is worth continuing as
a member? I am not holding my breath.
Bill Brookes
Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal