The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7479 p574
24 November 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 30K, Acrobat Reader

No turning back now

There are likely to be some pharmacists who will have a lump in their throat after learning that the establishment of the General Pharmaceutical Council is now under way. News that the Health and Social Care Bill received its First Reading in Parliament on 15 November 2007 (p581) means that regulation of pharmacists will indubitably be transferred to a new body — the General Pharmaceutical Council.

And, in turn, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which took on regulation roughly 75 years ago, will have to forge a new role for itself. Other pharmacists, however, will be whooping for joy: the Society — rid of the shackles of regulation — could now provide the much-hoped-for leadership of the profession.

Yet others, still smarting from having to pay such a huge retention fee for 2008, will probably feel disillusioned. Winning their confidence must be one of the aims for the new professional body.

All this restructuring, the Government believes, will be complete in just over two years’ time. The GPhC is expected to exist in shadow form from July 2009 and start working independently from January 2010. The Journal is inclined to think that it is more likely to see a herd of airborne pigs than the GPhC up and running by then.

The reason for the lack of optimism is the Department of Health’s own record. The Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007, although it started life nearly six years ago in February 2002, ended up running over two years behind schedule, partly because the Government moved the goalposts so frequently and partly because DoH staff kept moving on to other roles.

It seems the DoH is determined that the same fate will not befall the establishment of the GPhC. It has put additional resources — presumably including lawyers for drafting regulations — in place to ensure this is achieved.

The difficulty is that pharmacy is not the only profession having its regulator realigned and the Government may find it difficult to achieve all its aims within its own timetable. It has already conceded that the introduction of mandatory continuing professional development will be delayed from the end of next year until the GPhC is established.

What the Society must ensure in the transition period is that the GPhC is properly established and given all its statutory responsibilities from day one so that there is a clean break and its registrants know exactly where they stand. If day one needs to be put back in order to achieve that, so be it.

Back to Top