|
Michael Schofield is a former lay member of the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
|
The Broad spectrum feature is
open to any reader. Contributions of around 1,100 words commenting
on topical issues
may be posted to Graeme Smith, managing editor, or
e-mailed to graeme.smith@pharmj.org.uk for consideration
|
Pharmacy is on the brink of momentous change. The creation of a new
body which is unequivocally representative of the profession’s
interests, unencumbered by regulatory matters, will give new opportunities
to influence the Government, the regulatory body, the public and other
professions.
It is particularly advantageous that this initiative comes
at a time when the government and the public are supportive of developing
the role of the pharmacist and widening the scope of professional work. The profession will decide
It is, of course, for the profession to decide what sort of body should
emerge, phoenix-like, from the ashes of several others. While the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society is affected and involved to a greater degree
than any other body, the new organisation needs to start with a clean
sheet and be greater than the sum of its constituent parts.
This
is
a wonderful opportunity to learn from the past and to shape the
future, and it will not occur again for decades. The Transitional Committee
has a particularly important role to play in clarifying the issues
and options and determining the best way forward.
One of the fundamental issues is whether to seek chartered status
and be accountable to the Privy Council. This would entail, among
other obligations,
the need to have some lay involvement in the work of the new body.
It is unsurprising that there are some who would prefer not to go
along this road and see this as an opportunity to create a body consisting
entirely of pharmacists, with an accountability only to fellow pharmacist
members. This has the merit of simplicity and is, clearly, a new
departure.
There is, however, a cautionary and contrary viewpoint which needs
to be taken into account as discussions continue about the constitution
of the new organisation. There is really only one test of success
in this whole enterprise, which is what will best contribute to the
effectiveness
of the new body.
The role of lay members on a professional body can be compared to
that of non-executive directors on a company board. There are two
core purposes.
First there is a duty to ensure that there is a strategic vision
for the organisation which takes account of relevant external factors.
Secondly there is a duty to ensure proper governance of the organisation
and that
the seven Nolan principles are observed by the board collectively
and
by its individual members.
These principles would be relevant in
the following ways: • Selflessness — decisions should be taken in terms of the public
interest and not in order to gain financial or other material benefits
for self, family or friends
• Integrity — board members should not place themselves under any
financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations
that might influence them in the performance of their duties
• Objectivity — in carrying out business, including making appointments,
awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for awards or benefits,
choices should be made on merit
• Accountability — board members are accountable for their decisions
and actions and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate
• Openness — board members should be as open as possible about
all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for
their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest
clearly demands this
• Honesty — board members have a duty to declare any private interests
relating to their duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising
in a way that protects the public interest
• Leadership — board members should promote and support these principles
by leadership and example
A board without non-executive directors or lay members can, of course,
be capable of having regard to these duties. It is nevertheless considered,
both in public and commercial life, that the presence of non-executive
directors or lay members gives assurance to shareholders or members and
to the outside world. A professional body representing pharmacists would
surely wish to have regard to the way its credibility is perceived externally.
With regard to the possible link to the Privy Council via chartered status,
in the past it has been generally advantageous to have this status. This
has emphasised the importance of its role and given access to government,
which has been valuable.
The lay members have been appointed after a rigorous process in which
the profession has had some input and have brought a wide range of skills
and external networks to the work of a professional body. These could,
in the future, include financial management and marketing, which will
be very important to the new organisation.
Other important skills and
networks could include the professional/public interface, for example,
through experience of the world of patient interest groups and voluntary
organisations. An important area will be corporate governance, which
has been difficult in the past few years and may not become easier. These
skill areas are only illustrative examples and the pharmacy profession
will be best able to assess the kinds of skills which are needed.
The
term “lay” is used simply to describe anyone who is not a
registered pharmacist and there is a wide range of options. Through their
training and work many pharmacists possess these skills but interaction
with non-pharmacist expertise can still be beneficial to a governing
body.
If it is decided that there should be a lay input, an important issue
both symbolically and practically is what should be the proportionate
level of this input. When I joined the Society’s Council nearly
10 years ago there were three lay members on a Council of 24. This was
just about sufficient to enable an effective contribution to be made.
In
terms of the way the new professional body is seen by its pharmacist
members it might be advisable, if a lay input is considered advantageous,
for it to be a minority one.
The new representative body will be seeking to be influential — with
the profession, the Government, the public and, in practical terms, most
importantly with the General Pharmaceutical Council. Involvement of credible
lay members will help in developing the organisation’s influence,
which is the acid test of whether it will prosper. Chartered status is valuable
The issues around chartered status and lay membership can be considered
separately and it might be helpful for this approach to be adopted.
I think that chartered status is really rather valuable and that
it should not lightly be abandoned.
However it must be recognised that
this is a possibility, either because the Privy Council no longer
considers
it appropriate or because the new professional body does not want
it.
Even if this were to happen, the question of lay membership would
not necessarily be resolved. It could still be advisable for the
new professional
body to recognise the value of lay input and to incorporate this
into the constitution.
It would then be even better presented as
the wish
of the profession rather than an external imposition and the new
professional body would be demonstrating, from the beginning, a
recognition of its
public as well as its professional accountability and a recognition
also of the importance of the principles of good governance. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal