BRM calls for urgent meeting between Society and Hewitt on Government’s “royal college” intentions
Chris Elmes/IT/RPSGB
The President: the Department of Health’s conduct has been
appalling |
The branch representatives’ meeting carried a motion calling on the President to seek an urgent meeting with Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt to discuss the Government’s intentions in relation to the proposed “body akin to a royal college”.
The motion was not on the formal agenda but was proposed during a discussion
session at which attention was drawn to the letter
from Lord Hunt, the
health minister responsible for pharmacy, that was to appear in The
Journal that week (PJ, 19 May, p583).
Opening discussion, the President, Hemant Patel, said that he had learnt
about the letter only that day. Both he and the president of the Pharmaceutical
Society of Northern Ireland had been completely taken by surprise by
it because its content should have been shared with them — out
of courtesy, if nothing else.
The President drew attention to the letter’s penultimate paragraph,
in which Lord Hunt said: “There is no doubt in my mind that the
Society has contributed immensely to safe and effective patient care
over many years. In developing a Royal College, I want to see the profession
build on those solid foundations provided by the Society, but the profession
in its entirety should come together to decide the best way forward,
with the Society closely involved in this process. But there should be
no doubt that the Royal College will be a new body.”
So far as he was concerned, said the President, that left a number of
questions. Did it mean that the Royal Charter granted to the Society
only two years ago would be withdrawn? Did it mean that the Society could
continue to function and a new body would be set up in competition with
it?
Referring to Lord Hunt’s next sentence — “Initial indications
are that this is what much of the profession itself wants” — the
President asked: “Who has consulted the membership? Because he
concedes in his letter that, so far as the leadership body is concerned,
it is the matter for the profession as whole. Yet here he is, setting
up a college without consultation with the membership. There was one
meeting at the King’s Fund, but it cannot be regarded as a representative
of the whole of pharmacy.”
Nick Wood (Chelmsford), who was president of the Society when the new
Charter came into place, said that, being concerned about recent comments
by Lord Hunt, he had spoken to the Department of Health and been told
that a letter was on its way in which his questions would be answered.
But instead of clarifying the situation the letter made things far more
serious.
Mr Wood sent on to say that the Government and the Department had treated
the Society appallingly. The Society had done things because it had been
led to believe that there were certain requirements. But with Lord Hunt it
was an intervention too far. He wanted the meeting to encourage the
President — who might well not need encouraging — to seek
an immediate meeting with Lord Hunt’s superior, the Secretary of
State for Health, to discuss the Government’s real intentions.
The President said that 15 minutes earlier he had received an invitation
to see Lord Hunt. But, considering that the letter was sent to The
Journal without any discussion with him as President, he also found the Department’s
conduct appalling.
Allan Asher (East Metropolitan) said that so far as he could tell, the
Society was being given no option. The Department intended a done deal.
No one could argue with setting up a regulatory body, but by what right
did the Department tell the Society, “This is what will happen
and you will go along with it”?
The President reminded the meeting that the minister was accountable
to Parliament and MPs had a say in the matter. There were mechanisms
by which pharmacists could influence events, and each member of the Society
would need to decide what he or she wanted to do.
Andrew White (Bolton) said that because the letter was a clear statement
of intent the Government had to take responsibility for funding a new
body. Paying both a registration fee and a professional body fee would
represent a significant increase on the current retention fee, and pharmacist’s
outlay should not be increased further by building in set-up fees that
the Government ought to pay.
Jen De Val (British Pharmaceutical Students Association) commented on
Lord Hunt’s use of “but” before “the profession
in its entirety should come together to decide the best way forward”.
She thought that was what the profession was doing.
The President said that that was a good point. The Society had held a
meeting on 9 March to which the branches had been invited. It had held
a meeting on 30 March to which it had invited over 200 bodies, 60 of
which were represented. It had worked closely with the PSNI. It was now
engaging with branch representatives. What else was it supposed to do?
He added that he had been under immense pressure not to go ahead with
the meeting
on 30 March, but he believed the Society should consult relevant stakeholders
and the membership as soon as possible. He added: “We are dealing
with a Government that seeks openness and transparency from everyone
else, but its own intentions are less than clear.”
Angela Alexander (Slough) said that to her mind a new body was needed. “We
need a new direction. We need something new to engage the majority of
members whom we hope to attract, because it will not be mandatory, it
will be voluntary.”
The President said that to disconnect from the Society’s history
would be a huge mistake. He saw no reason why the Society minus the regulatory
role could not adapt to the new conditions and be fit for the future.
He would like to see a structure offering support for
all sectors of the profession, where every individual would feel valued.
He added that in recent years the Society had not been able to invest
as much time, effort and money in helping its members because a huge
proportion of the fee had had to go on the regulatory role, and it had
been constrained in raising the fees. Liberated from the shackle of putting
most of its income into a regulatory role, it could concentrate its help
where it was needed — practice, education, science, etc, and working
with others. To dismiss an existing body with a track record that could
be built on would be a mistake.
The Secretary and Registrar, Ann Lewis, said that serious thought needed
to be given to where money would come from to set up the new body if
it did not evolve from the Society. The Society had not only history
but an international reputation. Were its members prepared to throw that
away and let the Government set up a new body about which nothing was
yet known and which the Government would control?
David Morgan (Clwyd) said that the participants in the meeting attended
by a number of organisations had been encouraged to think in terms of
starting from a blank piece of paper. But, in setting up a completely
new body, one of the top options would be the involvement of the Society.
The President said that he understood why people would say, “Let’s
start with a blank sheet of paper”. But to do so without taking
account of existing structures would be negligent. Where was the options
paper that explained what would be achieved with a blank piece of paper
and what would be achieved with modification of the existing structure?
What was needed was an options paper that gave members of the Society
an opportunity to consider things in good time. It should not be a rushed
consultation leading to an emotional response. There should be a debate
and discussion about direction of travel, speed of travel and cost of
travel.
Stephen Curtis (Harrow and Hillingdon) asked whether people were misreading
Lord Hunt’s letter. He suggested that it all came down to interpretation
of one sentence about the new body. If one read the whole letter, it
was inviting open debate as to how to go forward. Lord Hunt may simply
have erred in one part of one sentence.
The President replied that his own observations had been based on experience
and discussion over the past three months.
Mel Smith (Hull) said that he found it difficult to understand suggestions
that the Society did not represent the professional body. A pharmacist
could belong to various special interest groups but the prime membership
was that of the Society. The Society — and its assets — had
to be involved in any new body. Where was the Government coming from?
Was Government policy being formulated by vested interests?
Another speaker expressed concern over the sentence: “While leadership
of the pharmacy profession is primarily a matter for the profession itself,
what neither I nor the public wish is to see the demise of pharmacy.” That
sounded like a sinister threat. Did it mean that, if the profession rejected
what was proposed in the letter, then pharmacy would be in decline, either
forcibly at the Government’s hands or at its own hands?
The President agreed that such an interpretation could be inferred.
Mr Wood then asked if the meeting wanted to pass an appropriate motion
in support of the President.
He suggested: “That this meeting mandates the President and the
Secretary and Registrar to seek an urgent meeting with the Secretary
of State for Health to discuss the Government’s intention in relation
to the proposed royal college and the future role of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain.”
Allan Asher seconded the motion, which was carried. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal