Council rejects PC advisers' further advice on national pharmacy boards
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has unanimously rejected a new suggestion by advisers to the Privy Council that pharmacy technician members of the English and Welsh pharmacy boards should be eligible to chair the boards.
At its special September
Council meeting, the Council also agreed to
express to the Clerk to the Privy Council its displeasure at having now
received a third batch of Privy Council demands for changes to the draft
regulations, forcing it to hold an additional formal Council meeting
before the Society could submit the draft regulations to the Privy Council
for approval.
Introducing the Privy Council advisers’ requests, the Society’s
head of corporate governance, Christine Gray, said that, although the
advisers wanted the Council to reconsider eligibility for board chairmanship,
they were not insisting on such a change as a condition of recommending
the regulations for approval.
Jonathan Buisson said that there was no need for a change. The Council
had already made clear that the boards would have an opportunity to examine
themselves and their structures at a later date.
Douglas Simpson said that it would be inappropriate for any of the boards,
as the representative arms of the Society, to be chaired by a technician.
The technicians had their own representative association.
Stephen Denyer said that the boards were not representative bodies but
part of the Society’s professional leadership. The support staff
component was an important part of that body. Although the Council should
make no change at present, it should take note of the direction the Privy
Council was asking it to look towards.
Lesley Morgan said that the pharmacy technician Council members were
there to support the profession but not to take leadership. She supported
everything that had been said. It was not an appropriate way forward.
The President then put to the vote a proposal that the status quo should
remain. The proposal was carried unanimously.
The Council also considered a number of amendments to the draft regulations
that the Privy Council advisers did insist upon. The most significant
were adjustments to prevent co-opted pharmacist members of the Scottish
or Welsh pharmacy boards from becoming chairman or vice-chairman and
to clarify that the Council could only delegate powers or functions to
the boards that were within categories specified in the regulations.
The other changes were small drafting points.
After debate, the Council agreed to all these amendments.
Commenting on the fact that Council members had had to deal with three
separate batches of amendments from Privy Council advisers, John Hanlon
said that any resentment was understandable. It had to be fed back to
the Privy Council that it was not an acceptable way to deal with the
Society.
The President said that a letter would be sent indicating the Council’s
displeasure. Such behaviour aroused suspicions in people’s minds
and caused confusion.
The Secretary and Registrar said that the Society had recently met Privy
Council staff and advisers because that way of working
was unacceptable. There had recently been significant changes both in
the solicitors who advise the Privy Council and in the civil servants
who provide policy advice. A clear process had now been agreed and problems
should not occur again.
Mrs Gray said that practically everyone who had been involved in the
process at the Privy Council had now moved on. Although there might be
some delay while the new people got up to speed, she hoped they would
get the situation right in the future.
The Vice-President said that at the August meeting, which he had chaired
in the absence of the President, the Council had agreed that a letter
would be sent to the Privy Council. He recalled agreeing its text but
he now understood that the letter had not been sent.
The Secretary and Registrar said that the Council had agreed that the
letter would be accompany the submission of the draft regulations.
Graham Phillips said that the Council should not dwell on the past. If
the people responsible have gone and the Society will be working with
a new team, that team should be bound into a proper commitment.
Ending the debate, the President said: “All the points relating
to our anger and frustration at being messed around are now fully understood.
I hope you will leave it to me to express things the way I can. I know
that emotions build up but we do need to move on.”
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal