Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7504 p653
31 May 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

• New professional body
• Minimise errors
• Council election
• The profession
• Dispensing doctors
• Unwanted pregnancy
• The Journal (2)
• Pharmacy robots
• Locum pharmacists
• Pharmacy in academia
• Adverse reactions
• Minority languages
• The Society


Letters to the Editor

New professional body

Society must comply with its gender equality duty

From Mrs H. J. Baker, MRPharmS

At the annual general meeting on 21 May (2008), it was explained that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council will remain as the decision-making body to which the new Transitional Committee (Transcom) will make recommendations.

Our association has been concerned that, in contrast with other healthcare regulators, the Society remains non-compliant with the gender equality duty (GED), which came into force in April 2007.

We are glad to have received assurances from the Chief Executive that Transcom and the Council will be acquainted with their obligations under the GED.

In our experience, however, not only do most groups within the profession know little about the duty, most practising pharmacists know little about their GED obligations as employees, or contractors to the NHS.

There are two critical reasons why everyone working to create the new body must ensure they operate in accordance with the duty. First, if the body wants mass membership, it must match its structures and policies to the nature of the pharmacy workforce. The Society has considerable information at its disposal about registration, work patterns and salaries, and it must make proper use of this knowledge.

Second, if the GED is not properly observed, any group in the profession that is unhappy about the outcome of deliberations will have strong grounds for seeking judicial review of the decisions reached. This option is specified in the guidance documents linked to implementation.

Compliance with GED obligations is not a luxury or something that can be added on later. Requirements in England include:

• The duty to assess the impact of current and proposed policies and practices on gender equality

• The need to include objectives to address the causes of any gender pay gap when formulating overall objectives

• The need to consult stakeholders (including employees, service users, trade unions and others) and take account of relevant information in order to determine gender equality

Furthermore, it must be possible to show how all these duties have been met.

We find it strange that other professional bodies (including many not required to comply with the GED) see this as an obvious mainstream issue, while it seems to have been almost ignored within pharmacy.

If the new body is to be truly focused on the needs of its members, things will need to change.

Hazel Baker
President, National Association of Women Pharmacists

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Minimise errors)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal