The answer is transparently obvious

Excellent! Well said. I am sure under freedom of Information we should be able to request documented evidence of all these claims to how things are worked out. At the moment we are simply dictated to as a profession and any consultation is usually fruitless. The Control of Entry Consultation ended months ago with no outcome to date.

Transparency in PPA payments would be a good starting point in this computerised age.

Try getting a straight answer to any questions to PSNC about anything to do with Pharmabase and hypothecated levies. THE TRANSPARANCY LEVEL THERE IS SET TO COMPLETE BLACK-OUT!

What exactly is an exclusive interview with Sue Sharpe......she is in the C&D every week for crying out loud. Exclusive not as if the Financial Times and Nrw York Post are queuing around the corner awaiting pearls of wisdom dropping from her lips.....Chance would be a fine thing...

Beautifully put, Jennifer. If I use the vernacular why does PSNC treat Contractors like mushrooms?

"Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit!"

Grham

Good point. It all seems too convenient to be saying this now. It sounds more like a desperate attempt to maintain a semblence of control after having lost the faith of so many pharmacists. What they are trying to say is 'we've always had it under control, everything was within expectations and we're actually really competent'.

Good god! Not only did we have to contend with the old RPSGB, but now the new RPS and PSNC! These guys seem to compete for the lowest level of incompetence! And yes, maybe I will eat my words if 'a little more' transperancy proves differently, but as long as these guys insist on working behind a cloud of secrecy, I will decry their efforts!
Imagine working for the PSNC. You are not held accountable for your actions nor for your performance - and you do not have targets. Bliss!
But a fair warning - once a paracite kills its host, it is doomed to die as well. The closer Sue and Co. steers the profession towards oblivion, the closer they themselves stand to loose their jobs. So my message to her and her cronies is to be careful - killing your host is not wise. But then wisdom seems in short supply at the PSNC.

Well Presented

Harnek, FOI request will give you nothing.

The discussions between PSNC and DH are confidential but the Cabinet discussions are revealed after thirty years. There needs to be a mechanism which reveals the minutes after a suitable time period.

Also, plese see the writing on teh wall as far as 100 hour pharmacy is concerned. Prepare to be disappointed.

Sorry Gerry, the interview is exclusive to C&D. You cannot take that away but does it say anything meaningful or new? it is like a summary of the tit bits. Mike Holden and Rob Darracott's brief comments actually said more if you go by the 'thought provoking index'.

Would you consider wider consultation was the question? It still is?. The real question is are your consultation in accordance with the Cabinet Office rules on Consultation? How do they compare to the BMA and the LMCs? Is a simple 'yes' or 'no' a consultation?

For those who are interested in reading beyond the edited highlights, a full transcript of the interview with Sue Sharpe is available at http://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/feature-content/-/article_display_list/14019125/q-a-with-psnc-chief-executive-sue-sharpe

We asked readers for their questions for Ms Sharpe before the interview on the site (http://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/feature-content/-/article_display_list/13937632/negotiating-your-future), via Twitter (@chemistdruggist) and in our LinkedIn group (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2862779&trk=hb_side_g).

If you have any suggestions for who we should target for our next Ask a Senator interview - and the questions we should ask them, please get in touch, either by replying to this message, posting on the message board (http://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/message-boards/-/message_boards/14035083/C%2bD+Senate/14035083#_19_message_14035083) or via Twitter/LinkedIn as above.

Jennifer you did the country a favour; Lib Dems introduced a balance without which the cuts would have been bigger under the Tories and government expenses higher under Labour.

Consultation:
The EC Directive and Implementing Regulations require consultation to take place while proposals are being formulated, rather than when decisions are being implemented, in order to show that consultation is genuine.

It states, 'In general, we anticipate that departments and agencies will be able to offer information and consultation, where appropriate, prior to the significant changes which might affect employees'.

Also, it adds, 'Departments and agencies may wish to consider the following examples, which are not intended to be comprehensive, in their survey of their current arrangements:-

• use of departmental intranet sites - which includes the facility to provide feedback via e-mail;

• direct access to Permanent Secretary and Directors via e-mail;

• regular “phone-ins” with senior staff;

• publications, circulars and newsletters – which include the facility to provide input and feedback;

• staff attitude surveys;

• seminars, awaydays, team building events – all designed to provide opportunities for staff feedback;

• regular team briefing by line managers – including the facility to provide direct feedback on topics via e-mail;

• Focus Group meetings;

• Investors in People;

• Working Groups; and

• employee networks – e.g. diversity networks.

So, if it is good for the Government why is similar exercise not good for the the LPCs who fund PSNC, pharmacy contractors who put private risk capital to maintain the network and for pharmacists who invest the necessary intellectual capital (knowledge, skills and interest) to provide a pharmaceutical service?

Also, why are there no employees on PSNC? In providing MURs, NMS, and enhanced services does their knowledge and skills have no value? Salaried GPs have their say but salaried pharmacists have no say. Is this fair?

Dinner & overnight at Taj Lodge.

Why can't we
1. as pharmacists regulate our own profession?
2.set a minimum wage for ourselves and our staff
3.Not necessarily go on strike but refuse to be burdened with the selfish initiatives set by our non pharmacist employers given ridiculous staffing levels.
4.persuade our EEC colleagues that although they may be earning a great deal more than they do in their home countries that by allowing themselves to be used as cheap labour they are actually damaging the profession in the UK. If Pharmacists are happy to work for £20 an hour ,work for the agreed minimum wage and by all means donate the balance philanthropically to whatever good cause they desire. BUT PLEASE LET US STOP UNDERCUTTING EACH OTHER!!!