GHP Presidential statement on Transitional Committee (TransCom)
Colleague,
Following a recent meeting of the Council of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists (GHP), I would like to bring you up to speed with our current position and views on a number of key issues relating to the new professional leadership body (PLB);
Support for Transcom process
GHP remains wholly supportive of the work of Transcom. It is vital for our profession that we have a competent and effective leadership body. We are heartened by the approach taken by Nigel Clarke, especially the open and transparent method of working and the opportunity we have to input and influence the process. We would encourage all those working within the broader Transcom process to engage as widely as possible with the membership, and to ensure that all processes are transparent and information is made available quickly and publicised widely.
Role of bodies providing representation (employee or employer)
It is vital to a vibrant profession to have 3 key organisational groupings – regulator, professional leadership body and body(ies) providing individual representation (either for employees or employers - such as trade unions and trade organisations). Separating the functions of these organisations is vital to achieving a balance and the right challenge within the profession. Offering financial services and other ‘added value’ deals deflect from the real function of a professional leadership body.
Expectations of the new PLB
We strongly believe that a new body is needed and any legacy from the RPSGB needs to be handled openly, clearly and with full explanation (Royal Charter, financial obligations etc) to members of the current and future PLB. We find the FIP approach to outlining the strategic functions of a leadership body a good example (details below), and would want to hold any PLB to these values. We have submitted these thoughts into the TransCom Leadership Working Group.
Membership of any new PLB
We are supportive of an inclusive membership which enables the pharmacy family to work more closely together. We are clear that the organisation should be for individuals within the pharmacy family. We are not clear how the planned ‘affiliation’ relationship will work with, for example APTUK, who have a relationship with a trade union already and are concerned this may disenfranchise technicians. We must ensure that technicians play a full part in the delivery of pharmaceutical services and as such we feel that technicians should have a place within the membership of a PLB. Using different membership categories will allow us to deal with access to services, post-nominal letters and voting rights.
Fees associated with any new PLB and regulator
We do not expect that the aggregate costs of membership of both the regulatory and professional leadership bodies to be greater than the current position. For regulation, we would not expect that the current state of play, where individual membership fees are relied on to subsidise the registration of premises, to remain. We would expect GPhC and the PLB to work together to achieve this position. We would also expect the PLB provides services for individual members and that fees to the PLB will be paid by the individual not the employer. Professional leadership and commercial leadership must be entirely separate.
Communications with members
It is vital that TransCom take the necessary steps, most likely through the RPSGB membership list, to contact each and every member individually, to engage with the silent majority. It is essential that when the prospectus is discussed at RPSGB Council it truly comes as no surprise to the profession at large, never mind groups which already exist.
I hope this explains clearly where we currently stand, and whilst I am willing to admit our views may develop as does the agenda, I am publicly putting down a clear marker as to where GHP stands on a number of these issues to dispel any misconceptions that may have previously been expressed by others.
GHP will continue to work with all of our partner organisations and colleagues in order to achieve the best outcome for our profession. I am happy for you to distribute this email as it is. I welcome further constructive discussions on these views.
Kind Regards
Richard Cattell
President, Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists