Council members query DoH claims for Carter report
Members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council have raised questions about Department of Health claims concerning the report of the DoH working party on professional regulation and leadership in pharmacy (the Carter report).
At the June Council
meeting, members queried the Department’s description
of the working party as independent and its claim that the working party
had endorsed the Department’s proposed changes to the regulation
of the pharmacy profession.
Members also queried an implication that the working party had been set
up with defined terms of reference when in fact the terms
of reference had not emerged until the working party had nearly completed
its work.
Bob Michell commented on the report’s statement that: “A
working party was established under the chairmanship of Lord Carter of
Coles with the following terms of reference.” That suggested, he
said, that at the first meeting the terms of reference were clear. But,
as a matter of historical accuracy, it should be
made clear that the terms of reference appeared ad hoc and retrospectively.
They did not finally emerge until either the last or last-but-one meeting.
The President said that Professor Michell was correct. Discussion about
terms of reference took place from the beginning of the series of meetings
and continued until the last meeting.
John Hanlon said that it was important to confirm and minute the fact
that the Council had raised that point with the Department of Health.
Douglas Simpson said that the Department of Health press release had
claimed: “Historic changes to the regulation of the pharmacy profession
announced earlier this year have been endorsed by an independent working
party.” He wondered if the President could enlarge on the word “endorsed”.
The President and other Council members had been nominees on the working
party and he wondered how they felt about the word “endorsed” being
used in the Department’s press release.
The President said that the Society had been invited to nominate four
people to sit on the working party. It was specified that the President
and a lay Council member were part of that group, together with two other
Council members. The four had contributed on the basis of that invitation
and discussions took place over a number of meetings.
The Secretary and Registrar said that it was a matter for the Department
to confirm what it meant by “endorse”, although the Society’s
news release had welcomed the publication of the report.
Alan Kershaw said that he was concerned about the use of the word “endorsed” but
he was even more concerned about the word “independent”.
Of whom was the working party independent, he asked.
The President said that, again, clarification was needed from the Department
of Health.
The Council members’ concerns were expressed after the Council
had received a verbal account of the Carter report from the Secretary
and Registrar, Ann Lewis. She said that the working party report had
been published on 15 May, together with the executive summary of an economic
evaluation by NERA Economic Consulting and the report of the Department
of Health’s seminar at the King’s Fund. The President had
indicated that the Society was already working with others to develop
a professional leadership body and had stated that the formation of this
body should be led by the profession.
The Secretary and Registrar said that the Society wanted several assurances:
• That any new arrangements would bring increased benefit to the public
and to the profession
• That any transition would be properly managed and resourced and that
there would be no increased risk
• That sustainable and long-term funding arrangements would be in place
for both the regulatory and professional leadership functions and that
the pharmacy profession and key stakeholders would be fully informed
and consulted
• That strong, transparent governance arrangements would be put
in place for both regulation and the professional leadership
body
The Secretary and Registrar said that, because the Council had not received
the working party’s final report in advance of publication, Council
members would wish to give it careful consideration. There would be an
opportunity to do this when the Council discussed it later in confidential
business.
The President said that he wanted to assure the profession that the future
of the Society would be determined not by the Secretary of State or any
other minister, not by the President or the Officers, not by the Council,
not by a general meeting or a branch representatives’ meeting,
not by some group of 130 or 140 other bodies but by the Society’s
membership. Whatever might happen, members should remember that. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal