Branch observers may not attend Council’s confidential sessions
Observers from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s branches and
regions are not to be allowed to attend the confidential business sessions
of Council meetings, the Council decided at the June
Council meeting.
However, the Council agreed that every possible
effort should be made to include items in public business and that
items on the confidential agenda should indicate why they are so designated.
The Council agreed to proceed in that manner after hearing the recommendations
of the Governance Committee. Before bringing its recommendations to the
Council, the Governance Committee had considered the risk of allowing
observers to attend all the confidential business of the Council.
It
took the view that those members attending as observers were not bound
by the Council members’ code of conduct. Neither did they have
the same duties and responsibilities, particularly the fiduciary duties,
of Council members.
In addition, observers did not have a contractual
duty of confidentiality, unlike the Society’s staff. The Governance
Committee also pointed out that a confidentiality undertaking did not
guarantee confidentiality of itself and noted that the Society’s
position in negotiations, for example, with other pharmacy bodies, might
be damaged if discussions were disclosed to other parties in those negotiations.
BRIAN CURWAIN wanted to know what the difference was between an invited
pharmacist observer and a member of the public or a member of the press. “I
can see good reasons why we need confidential items that are separate
and are discussed in the absence of the press and any member of the public
who may choose to come. I think there may be a different case to be made
for pharmacist observers, who understand the need for confidentiality,
who are bound by the Code of Ethics,” he said.
LORNA JACOBS said that the Governance Committee had had a heated debate
on that point. She said that it was on the basis of risk that the committee
decided it would only be appropriate to have Council members present
for confidential business. That was why it needed to be made clear what
the logic was by which an item was in confidential business.
She explained: “If
you look at why something is in confidential business, then it becomes
more clear why people should be excluded. If you are merely putting something
in confidential business because you are a bit embarrassed to be discussing
it in public, then it is gets a bit more woolly.
“If you are clear that
it is to do with the fact that something is a policy in process, or something
that it would be inappropriate for other organisations to know about
at this stage, or things that relate to personal individuals, it then
becomes much clearer that actually the reason this is in confidential
business is good and sound. Therefore everyone, other than Council members,
should be excluded.”
DAVID THOMSON expressed disappointment. He believed that pharmacist members,
governed by the Code of Ethics, might have been allowed to attend confidential
business. They dealt with confidential business/patient identifiable
material on a routine daily basis and were entrusted with that.
Mrs JACOBS said that the Governance Committee’s view was that everything
should be in public business unless there was good reason for it to be
in confidential.
JOHN JOLLEY supported the recommendations on the condition that confidential
items were kept to a minimum. There had been occasions when there had
been certain items which only the Council could discuss, even to the
exclusion of members of staff. He thought there should be procedures
in place to allow the Council to continue to do that.
ALISON MOORE raised a point about freedom of information. She found it
difficult to understand why things should be put in confidential business
that could technically be released anyway under freedom of information
legislation.
Mrs JACOBS said that that point served to make Council members aware
that they should always choose their words with care.
JOHN GENTLE said he was embarrassed that observers got “kicked
out” of meetings. He believed the principle should be that they
be allowed to stay, giving undertakings on confidentiality, as has happened
on the Scottish Pharmacy Board. The Council should be ashamed of itself
for maintaining the current position.
SYLVIA HIKINS also believed that branch and regional observers should
be trusted and included in the entire agenda. “If we exclude people
who we should trust, our branch and regional observers, it can look like
a stitch up, where we say certain things behind closed doors, and in
the public arena say little indeed.” However, she would want them
to agree to some kind of confidentiality clause.
DOUGLAS SIMPSON said the Council had to recognise that from time to time
matters of an intense personal interest crop up, where it would be quite
unreasonable to have anything other than people with a proper fiduciary
duty in the matter present. There were times when the proceedings had
to be confidential. He agreed entirely with the direction of travel to
put as much in public business as possible. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal