From the branches: Can the Society form the basis for a royal college-type
professional body
Ian Simpson (left) and Graham Phillips |
The Society’s Oxfordshire branch debated the motion that “this branch believes that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society cannot assume the role of a royal college” on 8 January 2008.
Ian Simpson, branch
member, proposed the motion and Graham Phillips, member of the Society’s
Council, opposed it.
An initial vote showed that 18 members supported the motion and five
were against it. There were six abstentions.
Opening the debate, Mr Simpson confirmed that he was an enthusiastic
supporter of the Society. So why, then, did he remain sceptical that
the Society could assume the role of a royal college? He said that the
changes that the profession is facing since the publication of the Government
White Paper last February are the greatest changes that the profession
has ever faced.
The White Paper makes it clear that the Society will need to have a strong
and clear voice to assume the critical responsibility of a royal college
and the confidence of its members. Mr Simpson said that it was a matter
of confidence in the Society. He said that the Government had already
shown its loss of confidence in the ability of the Society to regulate
its own affairs [by establishing the General Pharmaceutical Council].
The
present Society does not have the confidence of the public. The press
have taken relatively little interest in the Society with the exception
of its regulatory role, and in recent times only inflammatory and negative
press has been given to its members. As a consequence, the public has
little knowledge of the role of the Society and therefore has no confidence,
he said. Even pharmacists are disillusioned and apathetic with only
20 per cent voting in Council elections.
Mr Simpson said that with such a vote of no-confidence the Society
cannot assume such a critical new role. He cited the perceived arrogance
of
the Society towards its members, and that the Society does not represent
its members publicly
Mr Phillips agreed that the Society has a history of an appalling relationship
with its members. He said that overall, pharmacists have been apathetic
in voting for the Society Council representatives, but over 10,000 had
been inspired to vote regarding the exorbitant increase in fees set for
2008.
He understood that the average pharmacist member was overregulated and
overtaxed by the Society. He recognised that pharmacy did not have clear
leadership and with nearly 200 special interest groups, identified by
the Society, these could be united under one umbrella.
He said the future of the Society must be within common ground, and may
evolve, with other pharmaceutical bodies to a royal college, since all
the professionals are already working at Lambeth. He said that it was
unfortunate that the Society has had an arrogant relationship with its
members, and the Society needs to focus on improving its engagement with
its members and become more inclusive. Its regulatory function, held
for 75 years, had done it no favours in this respect. He said that the
Government has invested in the negotiations and wants the Society to
continue negotiating with its members afterwards to support a royal college
as pharmacy’s professional body.
The General Pharmaceutical Council to be formed by the Government will
not be responsible for leadership of the professional body, said Mr Phillips.
Under the Charter it would be the Society’s members who would decide
whether it would be the Society’s assets that would underpin the
new body. The Government cannot shape the future body without the introduction
of legislation. The current Society should be the pivot for the new royal
college and should not be destroyed in the process of its establishment,
he said.
Mr Phillips said that the royal college body suggested by the Government
is open to debate. He said he believes that what is important is creating
a vision which pharmacists will want to sign up to and a desire to come
together with this common vision. This was being addressed in part by
the 2020 Consultation which is due to report shortly.
However, he stressed, there is only a short window of opportunity to
capture the confidence of the main body of enthusiasts for a royal college
in order to exploit the opportunities for making a contribution to the
development of the new body as the Society demerges.
From the resounding reaction to Lord Hunt’s letter in The Pharmaceutical
Journal, in which he stipulated the need for the royal college to be
a new body and not the Society, it was clear that pharmacists do not
want outside governance. Lord Carter had responded to Lord Hunt and endorsed
the recommendations of the White Paper.
Mr Phillips said that the rest of the world looked towards the Society
and the UK in the way pharmacy is practised here, and that we should
all be celebrating this. We should bang the drum for pharmacy much harder,
he said.
He added that more cohesion is needed within the various pharmacy professional
bodies to form the synergy needed to drive the vision forward.
Summing up, Mr Simpson concluded that the new body will not be the Society
that we currently know. In developing a new body the profession should
embrace a once in a lifetime opportunity to build on its solid foundations
provided by the Society and come together to decide the best way forward
into the future in close collaboration with the Society, he said.
Mr Phillips concluded that the Society is the only vehicle to deliver
the new body as it relinquishes its regulatory role.
A vote at the close of the debate showed a swing against the motion with
six members voting for it, 19 against it and two abstainers.
From Susan Shelley, Oxfordshire branch |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal