The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7465 p168
18 August 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 30K, Acrobat Reader

Don’t shoot the messenger!

Anger and frustration about the proposed increases in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's retention fees (p129, 4 August 2007) continue to be expressed unabated. This week's Letters pages are devoted to the issue (p178). An informal online petition objecting to the increases has collected over 10,000 names (p169).

Notwithstanding that many entries are anonymous, that some names may be false and that multiple entries may have been made, the size of the response is noteworthy. And it makes sense that the Society has now decided to accept the petition as a response to the consultation it has launched over the proposed fees, provided it is formally submitted to the consultation e-mail address or to the Secretary and Registrar's office.

Unfairly, many members seem inclined to blame the Society for initiating the changes that have led to the increases. However, a great deal of the increased activity is a result of the implementation of Government policy — and not only pharmacy-related regulatory legislation. This week the Society’s Treasurer attempts to answer some of the questions that have been raised about the increases. Readers may not think all the answers are complete or entirely adequate (p190) but they do go some way to explain the financial constraints under which the Society is operating.

The Government should also take note of the number of objectors because it indicates that, while many pharmacists may applaud the move to separate the Society into a regulatory body and a professional body, when it comes to the reality of paying for it many may be far less keen. Those at Westminster and elsewhere who believe that separation will really benefit the profession may have to modify their expectations.

How much will a professional body be able to achieve when it has to rely on its publishing enterprises for income because only a minority of potential members will think it is worth signing up — particularly when the cost of membership of both bodies is likely to be greater than being a member of just one?

Moreover, the 10,000 respondents to the online petition should not think their job is done. If they are serious about the future of pharmacy they should take part in the Society’s formal consultation as well. Let us hope that at least some of them take a positive approach to the consultation and put forward suggestions that may mitigate the impact of the increase.

Last but very much not least, the Society has asked the Government for support for its transitional costs as it establishes two organisations. There has been no word from the Department of Health on what funds it will make available. Until that issue is resolved, the Council and the Society are likely to remain the target of the dissenters.

Back to Top