PDA writes to Minister to express concerns over the RP launch date.

The PDA gave evidence to this effect including a large scale survey of 2,500 pharmacists and also a petition signed by more than 4,500. The PDA requested that the implementation of the Responsible Pharmacist provisions be delayed, so that proper preparations for these changes could be put into place.

However, on Wednesday 9^th September, the DoH announced that it would not delay the introduction of the regulations and that the launch date was still to be 1^st October 2009.

The reasons given were that following consultations with "pharmacy stakeholders" they had indicated "confidence in pharmacy's readiness to implement the responsible pharmacist provisions".

Decision not to delay taken through undue influence of large employer interest

The PDA believes that the ministers' decision was not based on a solid appraisal of the true position within the profession. The only employer organisations that supported the original start date of October 1^st, were the large multiples. However, pharmacists on the ground, whether they are employees or locums are indicating to the PDA that area managers from the multiples appear to know little about the new regulations, or worse still have got their facts entirely wrong.

Contrasting the view that has been expressed by the large multiple employers, both the PDA and the Independent Pharmacist employer representatives called for a delay.

PDA Chairman Mark Koziol has explained that;

"It is galling to note that the DoH listened to a small handful of large employers and disregarded the views being expressed by many thousands of community pharmacists and their representative organisations. There is no doubt that the large employers want these regulations in place as soon as possible, as they will have the effect of largely taking their Superintendents out of the firing line if something goes wrong in the pharmacy. Instead, it will be the RP that will face greater personal liability. Asking the Superintendents to support a delay was bound to be clouded by issues of self protection "

It is the view of the PDA that the profession will not be ready for these regulations by October 1^st and any last minute clarifications now being sought by the RPSGB are likely to be too little, too late. As a consequence, the confusion that surrounds many of the matters associated with the RP regulations may lead to professional and employment disputes as employees and locums seek to clarify their new statutory powers with employers - many of whom may be unprepared and unwilling to hold these discussions with them.

Problems around rest breaks still exist

In particular, the PDA is concerned about the new statutory position around rest breaks. Under employment and Health and Safety legislation, these can now only be taken if the RP signs off, thus rendering a pharmacy inoperable. It is felt that because of this, many pharmacists will be expected to forgo their statutory rest breaks so that the pharmacy can continue to operate, or alternatively, they will be pressurised into taking their breaks whilst still signed on as an RP. This will be strictly against Employment and Health and Safety legislation and will be to the significant detriment of pharmacists.

"We are concerned with the explanations given by the DoH, that when drafting the RP regulations, they did not take into account the wider employment law as their focus was on healthcare legislation. The problem of rest breaks has after all, been consistently raised by the PDA for well over two years. In reality, it would appear that the employment rights of pharmacists were not deemed important enough for anyone to have wanted to have done anything about them in the RP regulations. The result is that many pharmacists will now be placed in a very difficult and unfair position"

Said Mark Koziol - PDA Chairman.

The profession was not to be rushed

The government explained to parliament in 2006, that it wanted to ensure that when considering the timing of the introduction of these new regulations, arrangements would need to be in place to provide pharmacists wishing to take on this important new role the opportunity to gain appropriate training and experience. Also, parliament was assured that the government would not want to go with these regulations at a rate which was faster than the profession wanted to go. These are important commitments made by the government in parliament and the PDA believes that neither of them have been met. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Because of these matters, the PDA has written directly to the Minister, setting out its concerns and re-emphasising its call for a delay.

Remuneration must reflect the new responsibilities for all RPs.

The new statutory powers for all RPs, will constitute a fundamental change to the terms and conditions of employees' contracts of employment and any contracts for services going forward need to reflect locums' responsibilities.

The PDA Union has today written to all employer representative organisations and the Chief Executives of major employers of pharmacists reminding them of their legal responsibility to consult on these implications with their employees.

Not only are there issues under employment law, but there are also ramifications under Working Time Regulations and Health and Safety legislation in respect of training and risk assessments.

" We are concerned that some employers will want to handle the changes as a non-event as they will not want to alert their employees and locums to the fact that the new responsibilities bring with them new authority in the workplace and qualify for a consultation about additional remuneration.

Pharmacists who automatically accept changes without registering any objection will be deemed to have accepted new terms without the need for any new consideration"

said John Murphy General Secretary of the PDA Union.

"A whole new can of worms has been opened by the Department in nodding this legislation through."

"Our focus now must be on ensuring that pharmacists don't accept this change without due process and our advice to all our members is to ensure that they instigate a consultation if one is not being offered. Furthermore, they should not accept changes to their contract without taking advice. We will be writing to employers asking them how they expect to initiate these changes to their employees' contracts and what consideration they will be giving their employees and locums for agreeing to enter into the change."

He said.

The PDA asks pharmacists to look out for announcements on its web site when employers' intentions become more transparent.