The answer is transparently obvious

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

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...

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'.

Well Presented

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?

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.