The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7504 p672
31 May 2008

Society summary

Assurance on involving others in decisions on new body

An assurance that other pharmacy bodies will be involved in establishing the new professional leadership body was given by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s President, Hemant Patel, during a presentation on professional leadership before the Society’s annual general meeting on 21 May 2008.

The President said that the Council had to take responsibility for making decisions but its firm intention was to involve other bodies. He hoped the membership would have confidence in it to deliver on that.

The President said that the Clarke inquiry had recommended that the Council should set up a Transitional Committee (Transcom) to produce a prospectus for the new body by the end of the year. Some time in 2009 it would establish a shadow Council so that the work of the new body could start in January of 2010.

Christine Glover (Edinburgh) asked how the shadow Council would be put in place. Would Transcom have to refer the matter back to the Council or would it have authority to get on with it?

Nigel Clarke, chairman of the Clarke inquiry, said that it would have to go back to the Council. But in the meantime, Transcom would have to involve the profession to the maximum degree, to ensure that what was referred back had widespread support.

Mark Koziol (Birmingham) said that many lay members had been appointed to the current Council because of the Society’s regulatory role. To what extent would they be involved in making key decisions on the future professional membership body, if at all?

The President said that the Council as a whole was charged with protecting and growing the Society’s assets. So a collective decision would be made by the Council, including its lay members and technicians.

Philip Brown (Weybridge) suggested that the General Pharmaceutical Council should charge a fee to cover both regulatory and professional activities and pass a proportion on to the professional body so that pharmacists would not have to volunteer to support it.

The President said he would like that, but the lawyers said it could not be done.

The Chief Executive and Registrar, Jeremy Holmes, said that the Society and the Department of Health were both sensitive to the aggregate amount pharmacists would have to pay to register with the GPhC and also join the professional body. They were working on ways of minimising the burden.

Graham Phillips (member of Council) said that the attractions of a royal charter included the word “royal”, which had heritage, had value abroad and added to the brand. But with a charter came Privy Council interference. He was not suggesting that the profession should not have a chartered body, but it was crucial to have a balanced debate on the most appropriate structure and to look at the other options.

Mr Clarke said that most Privy Council interventions in the Society had been concerned with its role as regulator. Any problems were to do with government departments and not the Privy Council per se.

David Morgan (North Wales) said that many UK pharmacy organisations wanted to be involved in setting up the new body. How did the Council intend to work with them to appoint Transcom and its chairman? If it did it on its own, it would not take the membership with it.

The President said that it was impossible for everyone to be represented on Transcom, since it was likely to be perhaps 13 people at most — “a small group of people who are well informed, have good connections and are willing to work in partnership with other organisations and help the chairman to deliver the kind of organisation that this profession needs and deserves”.

Asked when Transcom should have its first meeting, Mr Clarke said that it should be as soon as possible. Much work had to be done and the longer it took to set it up, the more difficult it would get. As far as the numbers went, although the core group might be no more than about 13 people, many more would be involved in the different streams of work.