The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7468 p256-257
8 September 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

• Retention fees (5)
• Community pharmacy
• MURs
• White Paper

Letters to the Editor

Retention fees

Answers to the more common questions

From Mr A. C. Gush, MRPharmS

I have been keeping up to date with the comments and concerns expressed by members regarding fees as a matter of priority and thought it would be useful if I provided answers to some of the more common questions being raised.

Can we have life membership for those over 90 years of age? These members need to be recognised. Unfortunately, based on current legislation, we cannot introduce any fee category based on age. This would fall within the Age Discrimination Act which was introduced in 2006.

However, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council has been considering an emeritus category of membership which would lend itself to recognising the contribution of such long-standing members of the Society.

Can there be a nominal fee for members who have been on the Register for over 50 years? We must find a solution for these important members of the Society that reflects their contribution and loyalty.

The Society’s Resource Management Committee and the Society’s Council have discussed this for a number of years and, in fact, gave agreement to propose the fee as a new category in 2005 for introduction in 2006.

However, advice received from Privy Council lawyers was that introducing a differential between members, based on age, would run foul of European legislation on age discrimination. The consideration of giving such members emeritus status is perhaps one solution but that could not apply to those on the practising Register for the reasons outlined above.

When are we due to consult on staged payments? We know that staged payments are important to our members and therefore they are now a priority for the Society. Amending the registration Rules, which fall within the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technician Order 2007, is a difficult and lengthy process.

In order for the Society to consult on staged payments with members there is a significant amount of work that is required before any consultation. This work includes discussions with the Department of Health and various sets of lawyers. The Council will have to put together, discuss and agree the new rules before the consultation too.

Can we still pay by cheque? Members will still be able to pay their 2008 fees by cheque.

However, it is the Society’s intention to phase cheques out during the course of 2008. Cheques are costly to process through both bank and hidden administration costs. At the start of 2005 we undertook a costing exercise for the retention fee project and we were surprised at the cost of processing cheques. We estimated the cost to be around £15 per cheque.

Therefore, over the past three years the Society has put in place alternative payment methods. The online payment facility has been a huge success with 60 per cent of the membership now paying their fees using this method and it continues to grow year on year.

Of the remaining membership, 15 per cent pay by direct debit and the remaining 25 per cent by cheque. We are hoping that online payments will rise to over 75 per cent for 2008 fees.

For those members who do not have access to a computer or the internet, we recommend payment by direct debit. We are also investigating phone payments, where members can call a specific number and pay their retention fees over the phone using a touch-dial system. We will be making further announcements at the appropriate time.

What would the capital sum be if the Lambeth building was sold? The Society’s financial statements report the value of the Society’s properties and are updated every three years in accordance with the financial reporting standards. The current value of the freehold and leasehold properties is close to £11m based on a valuation in 2004. The current net book value of the asset in the accounts is £7.2m giving a surplus of £3.8m to the accounts.

It seems that the pension fund deficit has existed for some time. Why the big rush to correct this now? Life now seems less predictable. Until recently, both the Society and the pension fund trustees were able to plan to address the pension fund deficit over a considerable period of time, based on a fairly predictable income.

The Government’s announcement that it will establish a new regulator for pharmacy has meant that the future is much less certain, so the pension fund issue will need to be addressed over a considerably shorter timescale.

What is the breakdown of expenditure between professional and regulatory activities? Detailed figures were published in the Society’s 2006 annual review and sent out to all the members via the PJ in April this year. They are also available on the Society’s website

Members may like to know that an in-depth fees’ Q&A, which will be updated on a regular basis, is now available on the Society’s website.

I also urge people to engage with the consultation process which still has five weeks left to run, since this is the most constructive way for members to make their opinions count. I would also like to thank everyone who has already sent in a reply to this important consultation.

Andrew Gush
Treasurer,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Taking the funding fight to Government

From Mr F. C. McCaul, MRPharmS

I was delighted to read the reaction from Andrew Gush, Treasurer of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, accepting calls from the Independent Pharmacy Federation and Pharmacists’ Defence Association for a far more active response from the Society in taking the funding fight to Government.

Unfortunately his complex and detailed arguments are hardly likely to have Government ministers rushing to change their policies. The IPF’s position calls for a robust and unambiguous stance from the Society’s leaders. To be absolutely clear, the Society must organise a vigorous, high-profile campaign against the fee increase which itself has to be well funded and aggressively carried through.

Specialist external PR consultants must be hired who will go straight for the headline-grabbing approach designed to make both ministers and the membership believe that the Society has, for once, got some fight in it.

Fin McCaul
Chairman,
Independent Pharmacy Federation

There are areas where savings can be made

From Dr M. D. Jones, MRPharmS

Treasurer Andrew Gush states that half of the proposed retention fee increase (£3m) will be used to boost the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s reserves (PJ, 18 August, p191).

The Society’s Annual Review 2006 (PDF 1MB) states the reserves as £4,003,000 (p35 and p38).

When an organisation is facing new financial demands, it usually has to “cut its cloth to suit its purse”, yet it seems that at such a time the Society is planning a 75 per cent increase in what are effectively its savings.

How much money does the Society’s Council want to hold in reserve? This is surely an area where a saving can be made.

Matthew Jones
London

Pension fund should not be supported by members

From Mr M. J. Moon, MRPharmS

I, like many others, suffered the result of a fiscal downturn and Gordon Brown’s raid on pension funds. The result was that my privately financed pension fund produced a smaller pension at the age of 69 years than I could have taken at 60 years.

When I read that my retention fee is to be increased in part to support the pension fund of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s staff, I wonder what this has got to do with me. Where was the Society and what was it doing to help me when my fund was depleted?

I believe that the fund should not be supported by extra money from the members. Let the recipients suffer their losses in the same way as many members have done.

Michael John Moon
Bristol

Before the visit of the man with the scythe

From Dr R. Baker, FRPharmS

Like Bill Brookes (PJ, 18 August, p179) I had assumed that I should remain a retired fellow of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society until the grim reaper called. Among the papers for my executor is a draft letter to the Society’s Secretary and Registrar to say that I had departed. The new fee proposals cause me to consider whether I should discard that letter and leave now, before the visit of the man with the scythe.

Surely unblemished membership and fellowship of the Society for 54 years should lead to better treatment than that being proposed?

Rodger Baker
Hertford

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Community pharmacy)