| • NHS (2)
• Retention fees (5)
• Postgraduate education
• Independent prescribing
• Registration
• The profession (2)
• Pack sizes
• Retirement
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
Voting off the Council
From Miss J. T. F. Aling, MRPharmS
I write further to the letter by Paul
Breame (PJ, 17 November 2007,
p562) in which he gave an excellent suggestion to use the ballot box
as a weapon.
It was followed by (what I thought was) an evasive response from the
President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
I would like to propose a suggestion — that more colleagues stand
for election next time around and we collectively vote off the entire
existing Council. I have never voted before but I certainly intend to
vote in the next election.
Joanna Aling
London
Further warning if fees are not paid
From Mrs V. Madden, MRPharmS
I have spoken to someone from registration at the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society who confirms that there has been no change to the rules that
state that a further warning will be given if retention fees are not
paid by the due date and removal from the Register will only follow if
payment has not been made within two months, ie, the end of February.
While
not encouraging members to be late in payment, this may help those who
are particularly concerned about the timing of payments.
Regarding the restoration fee of up to £1,235, it would be interesting
to hear how this is justified. This year banks have been taken to task
over charges that are disproportionate to the costs involved and, in
many cases, refunds have been made to customers.
Should a challenge be
made to the Society? Valerie Madden
Coventry,
West Midlands
Do not take the threats too seriously
From Mr F. T. Segal, MRPharmS
It may come as a surprise to fellow members of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society that one can pay the retention fee as late as the end of February
without fear of removal from the Register and of the consequent penalty
fees for restoration.
I discovered this by chance last year when I was
considering retirement and needed some time to make a decision. I telephoned
the people in the registration department and was surprised to be informed
that if they did not receive my fee in December, they would send a
letter to me on 2 January warning me about the penalties involved if
I did not
pay them by late February.
With this in mind I called them again this week, and was given the
same information. With the fee being so inflated, I am even more undecided
this year about the economic sense of staying on the Register, and
I
shall be taking advantage of the extra time to mull it over.
So,pharmacists should not take the implied threats on the retention
fee form to pay by 19 December too seriously. They can enjoy the festive
season and settle their accounts when their heads are well and truly
clear by late February. Frederick Segal
London
Clarification of removal and restoration process
From Mr R. Venkatesh, MRPharmS
Thank you for publishing my
letter (PJ, 24 November, p586) and to Andrew
Gardner for his answers.
With regard to the “risk” of being removed from the Register
if the fee payment is not made by 1 January 2008, can Mr Gardner confirm
that the subsequent process is that a final demand will be sent and that
payment must then be made within two months from the date of that final
demand?
If payment still has not been made, it is only after this period
that the Registrar can remove the pharmacist’s name from the Register?
With regard to the restoration process, there appears to be two
restoration fees — one called “voluntary” (£191)
and one called “penalty” (£753) (see PJ, 10
November 2007, p541).
The restoration fee (penalty) which is used for
those members
who want
to be restored to the Register following non-payment of the retention
fee is nearly four times that of the former — surely the physical
process of restoration is no different. This coupled with the term “penalty” that
is used to describe it suggests that there is a punitive function to
this fee and that it incorporates a fine.
The Bill of Rights Act 16891 was enacted
and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights
1689. It specifies “that all
grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before
conviction are illegal and void”, ie, a conviction is necessary
before a fine or forfeit can be imposed.
The Bill of Rights is a “constitutional statute” and may
not be repealed impliedly — as stated in the “Metric Martyrs” Judgment
in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr
Justice Crane (see sections 62 and 63).2
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Royal Charter, the Pharmacy
Act 1954 and The Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 20073 make
no specific reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and it
is still in force today.
As non-payment of the annual retention fee is not a criminal offence
and, therefore, would not proceed to a Court of Law, the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society and its agents have no lawful authority to demand a financial
penalty or fine if a member wished to be restored to the Register following
removal for non or late payment.
If this is correct, the Society should check through its records and
refund the “fine” element of the restoration fee (penalty)
to all those pharmacists who were forced to pay it in the past. Additionally
it should remove the fine element from the published fees for 2008. Roy Venkatesh
Basingstoke, Hampshire
References
1. Bill of Rights
1689.
(accessed 10 December 2007)
2. Thoburn
versus Sunderland City Council. 18 February 2002. (accessed 10 December
2007)
3. The
Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007. (accessed 10 December
2007)
| |
JEREMY HOLMES, Chief Executive and Registrar
at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
Retention in the
Register and the procedure
for removal of a registrant from the Register for non-payment of
retention fees is determined by Rule 7 of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain (Registration Rules) Order of Council
2007.
Rule 7(6) states: “Where a registrant has failed to pay the
retention fee by 1 January of the year to which the fee relates,
the Registrar shall serve on that registrant a final demand informing
him in terms that no further warning shall be given; and failure
to pay the retention fee within two months from the date of the final
demand will result in his removal from the Register.”
Under Article 40 of the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order
2007 (“the Order”), the Society’s Council may make
and publish rules with respect to the charging of fees in connection
with registration including fees for restoration to the Register.
The issue of the fees set by Council in relation to restoration has
been raised. Rule 6 of the RPSGB (Fees in Connection with Registration)
Rules 2007 (“the Fees Rules”) states the following:
“6
(1) Any person who (a) does not pay the appropriate retention fee
as specified in Rule 4 and who is therefore removed from the Register
of Pharmacists in accordance with the Registration Rules; and (b)
who subsequently wishes to restore his name to the Register, shall
pay a fee of £540 in addition to the appropriate retention
fee for the year in which he is restored to the Register of Pharmacists.
“6 (2) Any person who (a) voluntarily removed his name from
the Register of Pharmacists in accordance with the Registration Rules;
and (b)
wishes to restore his name to the Register of Pharmacists, shall
pay a fee of £137 in addition to the appropriate retention
fee for the year in which he is restored to the Register of Pharmacists.”
The Society accepts that confusion may have arisen as a result
of the terms used in the PJ article of 10 November 2007
(p541) to differentiate between the fees payable on restoration.
The Society
apologises
for
any confusion this may have caused as the term “penalty” is
not used in the Fees Rules, but appears in the article.
The fee payable on restoration, following removal from the Register
for non-payment of a retention fee, is not a penalty, as defined
in the legislation, nor is it a “fine or a forfeiture”.
Consequently the Bill of Rights Act 1689 has no application.
It
is, of course, a decision of the pharmacist in question to decide
whether
to seek restoration to the Register and to pay the relevant fee
set by the Council.
The Council has agreed an increase in the fee for restoration following
removal for non-payment from £540 to £753 for 2008. This
takes account of the increased administration costs involved where
the Society has been obliged to pursue registrants who have failed
to make retention-fee payments, the costs in issuing a final demand
for payment and the subsequent removal from the Register. The voluntary
removal and restoration fee of £137 has been increased to £191
for 2008.
The Registrar will issue final demands for payment in early January.
The Society would counsel members not to risk being issued with
a “final
demand”, since no further communication is necessary before
automatic removal from the Register for non-payment at the end
of the final notice period.
While the process of fee collection
is cost
efficient, those members who do not pay before the due date add
considerably to the cost of the fee collection process, a cost
ultimately borne
by all those registered.
I hope this clarifies the position and I will ensure that future
fee schedules make these details clear. |
Where the money from membership fees goes
From Mr A. C. Gush, MRPharmS
Responding to the requests of members, it is important that the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society makes it explicitly clear where the money from
membership fees goes.
Now is the time to look forward and for the profession to know that the
Society is investing carefully in pharmacy’s future.
To help members
to gain a better understanding of where this future investment will go
I have prepared a document outlining the Society’s key investments
for 2008, which is available on the Society’s website (PDF 1.2MB).
I encourage members to read this documents which gives a clear picture
of the Society’s priority areas of investment, in particular: • Education For example, we are continuing to develop the accreditation
portfolio to cover independent prescribing courses and we are developing
policy to recognise advanced and specialist practice on the Registers.
• Pharmacy practice This includes taking forward the accreditation of
pharmacy services at national level so that pharmacists accredited to
provide an enhanced service in one primary care trust are also accredited
in other PCTs.
• Communications Investment here includes the running of an Open Day
at the Society’s Lambeth office in spring, engaging members and
encouraging people to learn more about how we do things.
Going forward I will continue to provide regular updates about the Society’s
financial plans to help ensure that members know how their fees are being
spent.
Andrew Gush
Treasurer
Royal Pharmaceutical Society |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal