Latest News

This new page is to keep you informed of events as they happen in the fight to retain our dispensing surgeries.  We will update it as events occur.  SODS welcome comment and information which can be sent to us at our email address, patientsods@btinternet.com

Latest news as at 20^th August, 2010

The Dundee Courier have today rung SODS  to ask if we knew that Mr Semple was selling up his interests in the Leuchars  Pharmacy.  He claims there has been a personal vendetta against him.  Not so, SODS, the Leuchars community and the other four community councils,in the area, Dairsie, Guardbridge, Tayport and Balmullo, have absolutely no problem with pharmacists who will attend public meetings, take questions and discuss their proposals openly with local people.  Mr Semple  failed on all these counts and cannot be surprised at the reaction he has aroused. Or was it all about money?

The Millport hearing is on the 25^th August.  If eventually Mr Semple’s pharmacy application is successful, and it may be under the current unsatisfactory and undemocratic legislation, we confidently anticipate that he may   sell on his interests there as well.  Possibly also in Tarves. Opposition to the TLC Group’s Millport pharmacy proposal is just as strong , if not stronger than in other areas and they have good contingency plans in place to  react to it.  Perhaps, at last, people are beginning to realise they have the power to exercise their choice and vote with their feet.  SODS could of course titled themselves as ABS, ‘Anyone but Semple’ but that was never our intention.

 The current Leuchars pharmacist has recently described SODS as  an ‘anti pharmacy political pressure group who no longer have any objectives in Leuchars’ Utterly wrong on both counts.  SODS have no political affinities and never will have.  SODS, like any other  protest group, will use all sources in media and politics to get their message across And we believe we are now doing so.  The fact is we ARE in favour of pharmacy applications where the public  have a chance to meet and discuss with applicants all aspects of their proposals .  Balmullo was an excellent example but now that has been turned down. For the moment that is.

As for having no interest now in Leuchars  two SODS members attended the Fife Area Health Board Annual review on Tuesday 17^th August in Kirkcaldy. The following question was addressed to the  Fife AHB

Following the recent approval to allow a commercial pharmacy to open in Leuchars Post Office,  where there are   serious concerns over the access for disabled persons,  can the Board please explain why no Impact Assessment was carried out, in direct contravention of the  Disability Equality Legislation, 2004?  Many patients now believe the present unwanted pharmacy could not have been approved had such action been taken.

The Board admitted that no Impact Assessment had been carried out to evaluate the  effect of the proposed pharmacy location on disabled access for patients.  It has taken the AHB  3 months to finally admit to this after many attempts by SODS and Leuchars Community |Council.  The  reason given was that the AHB legal team were still trying to ascertain if the Board was required to do so This answer will  be of great interest to the Equality Commission responsible for the legislation who have already indicated that NHS contracts fall within their remit.

   2006 Disability Equality Duty, Appendix A, schedule 1,  Part 1, lists Area Health Boards ( in Scotland) as subject to the legislation.

Paras 3.36 and 3.37  within the legislation clearly state that ‘ if there is a clear indication that an action is likely to have an major impact on disabled people authorities are likely to need to conduct a full Impact Assessment.

 There can be few more obvious cases for such action as the Leuchars Pharmacy yet no action was taken.  SODS and Leuchars Community Council are now  preparing an approach to the Ombudsman now that the final evidence is available to them regarding the failure to carry out the Assessment.  Yes, I think we can claim to still have an interest in Leuchars. 

In addition at the same meeting the following question was put directly to Nicola Sturgeon, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Welfare,:-

I am Alan Kennedy the Petitioner for Petition 1220 to the Scottish Parliament which seeks to bring fairness into the very flawed Pharmacy Regulations that are now allowing commercial pharmacists to destroy years of excellent and much appreciated GP dispensing services in rural areas

Throughout Scotland some 70 dispensing GP rural practices have now been targeted for applications for  commercial pharmacies.  These applications are made for commercial gain and are resisted by every community they impact on.  I am fully aware of and involved in the painfully slow consultation process on the Control of Entry legislation which might, if properly addressed, bring   a more democratic outcome to such applications

You have been repeatedly asked by patients, politicians of all parties and the media to put a hold on current applications until new legislation is introduced.  You do have the  authority to do so., Will you now please act?

Once again Nicola Sturgeon reiterated she was unable to act.  In government but not in power is a phrase that springs to mind.  If you are Cabinet Secretary and cannot act what is the point of being Cabinet Secretary?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Latest News as at 30^th July 2010

Leuchars Community Council, working with SODS Forum Group, have now started on the process of taking the Leuchars Pharmacy decision to the Scottish Ombudsman.  Following advice given by the Disability Equality Commission and the Ombudsman office a formal complaint has been submitted to Fife Area Health Board.  This concerns the failure of the Fife NHS authorities to carry out an Impact Assessment on the Leuchars Pharmacy site in accordance with current legislation and asks why this was not done.  Had this action been taken it is difficult to see how the premises could have been approved for such purposes.  All parties involved know for sure now that no Assessment was done but we have to go through these  steps in order to comply with the Ombudsman process.

Meanwhile in Millport on Isle of Cumbrae Island, another dispensing practice at danger from an application by Mr Semple to open a community pharmacy,there has been outrage at comments made by him in a local paper. You can read all about it at this here.

                            http://www.dispensingdoctor.org/content.php?id=1393

      It now appears Mr Semple blames a ‘conspiracy’ by GPs to make him drop his application.  He also claims, quite unjustifiably that local patients are too scared to speak out.  Naturally he himself is nowhere to be found when public debate  virtually unanimously condemns both his actions and his wild and inaccurate statements. He appears to have upset many  in the community and especially elderly patients

 However those who may wish to see Mr Semple, for the first time, have an opportunity to do so on BBC Scotland News to be broadcast on

  BBC 1 TV, Scottish News Monday 2^nd August at 6.30 pm.

Eleanor Bradford, BBC Health Correspondent, has been looking into the Millport situation and her report will no doubt be interesting and informative.  Leuchars and Balmullo patients may care to watch as, apart from them seeing for the first time the man who has so disrupted the local communities, the reporter has expressed an interest to SODS in understanding more about the decisions affecting rural  NHS services across Scotland.  We will keep her in touch with developments on this  site

 June Allison, of Millport SODS, has posted a response by letter to the Sunday Herald regarding Mr Semple’s comments in the article published on 24^th July.    It perfectly reflects the feelings of Millport patients and should serve as a timely and informative reminder to patients in threatened rural dispensing practices across Scotland that commercial profits are often the biggest motivator of all and service to patients is not necessarily the real reason behind such applications.

Mrs Allison’s article is so well put together and forms such a perfect riposte to the newspaper comments made by  Mr Semple that we are delighted that she has agreed to it being posted on this website.  In fact we intend giving it a much wider circulation via our SODS contacts list.

June wrote on 27^th July:-

To the Editor, Sunday Herald,

Dear Sir,

I have spoken to Ms. McArdle regarding her article in the Sunday Herald and.she admits that she was contacted by Mr. Semple and the article was slanted from what he told her.  

 However, I wonder if she also looked at the email sent from him referrring to his "global sum" and it being diluted, or the ones to the Leuchars SODS "crowing" about his activities.

Mr. Semple only began to wish to bestow the "benefits" of pharmacies on rural populations when under the F.O.I. act he was able to find out the turnover of Dispensing Doctors!

We are an island with the access problems all of that involves, we have a predominately elderly population who will find difficulty in accessing a shop some way from the surgery, we have much higher than the average number of people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, none of whom will be able to gain access to the proposed pharmacy.

You must also remember that we have a "ferry bus" not any public transport as such and there is no fuel for sale on the island, all of which hinders easy movement from the West Bay and the housing scheme.

On the island we have a purpose built Surgery and Dispensary in a public building which has just got £5. million to be totally refurbished so that our Health Services could all be in one place, so what can possibly be improved by moving the dispensing service away to a smaller dingier shop without disabled access?

We are a fragile economy and placed in the overall ranking of  multiple deprivation and the loss of the 5 jobs and one doctor will be fairly catastrophic to us.

Also 49% of our population is over 55.  

At our public meeting we had some 300 people.  Considering the number of children on the island and those involved in their care, the housebound, those away on Age Concern trips that day and those already booked into our travelling cinema which  comes once a month, that is an enormous amount and there was 99% support for the island to retain the Status Quo, i.e. our Dispensary Service.

As for the reports of bullying.   These are ridiculous.   We are the Millport SODS, not the "mafia" and all we have done is have our say and put forward our opinions.   We are a democracy and all are allowed their opinions but no one has been "bullied" which is a ludicrous claim to make about a committee run by o.a.ps and whose spokesperson is a 66 year old 5'2" woman. 

As for Ms. McSorley's claims and allegations, Millport SODS did not exist at the time of her application.

To say that there is some Machiavellian plot going on here is as farfetched as it is ludicrous and could only have been made by someone desperate to win at all costs.

I regret the necessity of having to write this letter but the way the article was written made it appear that the atmosphere on the island was different to that which is the reality.

That is obviously  borne out by the feeling of the Public Meeting, the number of letters sent to the Minister Shona Robison regarding the odd way that Mr. Semple's application, (though altered several times in the way of dates and the pharmacist) was numbered 108, but managed to jump the queue over Lomond Pharmacy's which was numbered 107 and put out to Public Consultation first.

There have also been many, many letters sent regarding Mr. Semple's application to the Health Board stating that they are totally against his pharmacy.  

Anyone who wished to support him was able to do so via letter or email both privately and confidentially and I cannot imagine how they could have been "bullied" into doing otherwise!

Perhaps, if those opposing Mr. Semple's application here on the island had been spoken to before the the article was printed on Sunday, and it had been somewhat more evenly balanced, it would (not)  have caused so much outrage. 

Can I please end by saying that the organisation Millport SODS acts totally independently of the GPs here who do not attend our meetings, nor see any of our statements before they are circulated.   To say otherwise is both untrue and derogatory to both parties.

Thank you for your attention

June Allison

Visitors to this website, ( and numbers are increasing daily) should be aware that there is much still going on behind the scenes in this long running saga to protect rural dispensing practices.  We will keep the public informed as much as we can, as and when we can.  We have drawn the attention of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, MSP , to the fact that, if looking for savings in the NHS budget is as important as we are told, one of the first actions should be to act to preserve rural dispensing practices. Latest statistics show that GP dispensing practices are now more cost effective in NHS dispensing terms than any pharmacy displacing them—AND patients want them retained!  What could be simpler?  Pleasing patients and taxpayers and saving NHS funds!

_________

Latest News as at 5^th July , 2010

We are sad to hear that Tarves Medical Practice has lost its battle to keep its dispensing surgery. The National Appeal Panel ruled that an application to open a commercial pharmacy by  Mr Semple is approved.  The name of this applicant is well known to all the communities opposing such activities. He will continue to claim, no doubt, that he is benefiting local NHS services and his actions will have no effect on GP services. Tell that to the communities who have to deal with the impact of his unwelcome applications.  Small wonder that they so strongly oppose his actions. Profit as opposed to patient welfare appears to  the key motive as no doubt he will gain financially by transferring the  Tarves commercial pharmacy to a third party.  SODS believe that he has also applied for a pharmacy licence for the Pitmedden area.  The public may care to know that Mr Semple has said that he is using the Freedom of Information Act to target dispensing practices to access their income from dispensing.  His statements on this are in the public domain.  This serves to illustrate that such applications are being made for commercial gain and it would appear that any concern for the service to patients is not the motivator.

Such commercial applications will continue and may succeed until the Pharmaceutical (Scotland) Regulations are changed to bring about a fairer and more democratic process in the Control of Entry legislation.  Despite being asked to intervene by a number of bodies, both political and community based, Scottish Executive ministers with responsibility for our NHS services Shona Robson, MSP and Nicola Sturgeon, MSP  are not willing to suspend these applications until the review of the regulations is complete.  Much harm is being done to rural community services by this failure to act to protect patient services.

 Other matters concerning the Leuchars pharmacy case are now under consideration.    Some two months ago SODS  asked Fife Area Health authorities if they had carried out an Impact Assessment to assess the effect on disabled  patients before  the approval  was given—and if not why not..  We have received  no answers on these questions.  We then put the same question on 17^th May to Fife NHS in the form of a Freedom Of Information enquiry.  This resulted in a further delay  beyond the normal response time as the FIO representatives appeared to encounter considerable problems in finding the information we sought.Despite FIO representatives’ best efforts Fife NHS have  failed to give an answer.  The question is very simple.  Did they  or didn’t they and if not why not? .  If ever a location required a Impact Assessment  it must be the Leuchars Pharmacy location.  A quick glance at our website pictures and linked information makes this patently obvious.

 We are now 100%  certain that Fife Area Health Board did NOT carry out an Impact Assessment.  The Fife NHS  Freedom of Information department has now confirmed  to SODS that they are  unable to trace any record of  an Assessment  being made or even considered. We therefore asked the Equality Commission to  examine this   matter  which we believe is a serious breach of current mandatory legislation under the Equality Legislation 2006 Act. The Commission have informed SODS that the case, now registered with them, will go  before their Assessment  Panel to determine what  further  action may be taken.  We have also received advice from the Equality Commission concerning other action we should now take and we anticipate this will commence jointly with Leuchars Community Council.  Details will be published in due course.

On the 29^th of June Petition 1220 received another hearing at the Scottish Parliaments’ Petitions Committee.  As a result of the  petitioner’s input   further questions are to be asked of the Scottish Executive with regard to the current ‘Control Of Entry’ consultation process which covers regulations for commercial pharmacy applications..  In our previous news pages we made reference to significant omissions from the public consultation process.  These have now been addressed by a series of questions from the Petition Committee to the Scottish Executive.  See below:-

 TUESDAY 29 JUNE 2010—

Scottish Government—

·     How will you ensure that public opinion is incorporated into the decision making process by NHS boards in addition to their requirement to publicly consult?

·     What assessment has been made in relation to the impact the changes will have in rural areas?

·     Are NHS boards carrying out Impact Assessments under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005?  What are your views on the points raised by the petitioner in this regard?

These are important  questions and in their own way highlight the considerable disconnect between  what the Scottish Government and the pharmaceutical profession wants to impose  and the service that patients served by dispensing surgeries threatened by  unwanted commercial pharmacies seek to retain.  This battle  and it is a battle, is about our  NHS  service and  how it is  being shaped and  adversely altered in rural areas by commercially driven enterprises..  Common sense, fair play and patient wishes get trodden upon in the rush for  commercial gain.  That is why  SODS are so resolute in their  defence of what the  public want.  SODS have no financial stake in the outcome, SODS are not linked to any  political agenda or party. SODS are  determined that, despite all the  present setbacks like Tarves and Leuchars, this is  something worth fighting for.  We congratulate Millport SODS on the  campaign they are now running  to save their dispensing service. 

Savings in every  government department  is now the  name of the  game.  Figures just published for Scotland  show that dispensing doctor drug costs are considerably lower than pharmacy  prescription costs by a significant margin.

One wonders what is going on in NHS Scotland and why they are not  trying to  protect GP dispensing and other services as in England?  They are cheaper  to run, are wanted by patients who receive the service and help unite rural communities rather than tear them apart.  Another case of a government department being totally out of step with public opinion and financial common sense.

Latest News as at 13^th June 2010

This has been a busy time for SODS.  The deadline for submissions on the ‘Control Of Entry’  consultation  for  pharmacy  applications was 11^th June.  It is  to be  hoped  that   patients and all those involved in NHS services  at  the  front line  will have  done  their best  to  provide  their views.  The SODS submission is shown below.   A summary of all non-confidential responses is  expected  to be posted on the following website  by 6^th July, 2010.     http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations

 At a time  when dispensing  surgeries all over  Scotland are  now under  threat it was sad to see that  Leuchars  surgery is making  the  necessary provisions to run down and eventually close in one  year’s time.  The closure has been brought about solely by the opening of the  Leuchars  pharmacy  on 1st  June .  A pharmacy  that  might never  have  been approved if Fife NHS had taken into account  public opinion and all the  relevant  factors pertaining to the  premises.  Now Millport on Cumbrae, as well as Tarves in Aberdeenshire, face a  similar threat  to their  dispensing  surgery services. At a recent and  packed  public meeting the Millport public voted overwhelmingly against  the pharmacy application.  It  remains  to be  seen whether  their views will be  considered  when decisions are made or  whether they will be ignored as per the  Leuchars case.

PE 1220 to the Scottish Parliament is  still actively progressing.  Recently  the  Committee  raised  their  concerns about the consultation process and in particular its limited nature regarding  the  wider  issues  affecting applications.  The  Executive  have  responded  to this  by stating  that  they  believed  they  had addressed all the issues.  They also stated  that  they  would  not  suspend current  applications, claiming  they  had  no authority  to do so.  What is  the point of having a Health Executive if it  totally  fails  to use  common sense and   find  ways  to minimise actions  which are harming its  services?  Alan Kennedy, as the  initiator of   Petition 1220,  has  now  submitted  an update  to the  committee for its  next  meeting  at  the end of  June which  records that many  vital  factors have  not  been addressed in the consultation process.  In particular the fact  that  there  is  still no  mandatory obligation on Area Health Boards and  National Appeal Panels to make public opinion a key  component of  the  decision process.  Until this is  done the public will have no  trust in the  end  result.

All is  far from over in the Leuchars  case and SODS is  currently  researching  a new factor which could  call into question  the  legality of the  PPC and NAP decision. Leuchars Community  Council are also working on the case and there is no doubt  that   Leuchars  patients are still strongly opposed  to what has  happened .   Balmullo patients await the NAP appeal at the end of  July to learn whether they  will retain dispensing  services at  their  surgery.

  Meanwhile the British Medical Association,Scotland,  has recently  reiterated its call for  government  support  for  rural dispensing practices.  The matter  was  debated at  the  annual GP conference in London last  week.  Dr Dean Marshall, Chairman of BMA Scotland, stated  “that  patient satisfaction surveys  clearly indicate the value that dispensing surgeries. provide”.  It is even more  frustrating  when one learns that recent costings indicate that pharmacy dispensing costs to the NHS are greater than those from dispensing practices.

England and Wales have  taken steps  to protect  rural dispensing  services having  realised  their true value.  Yet  despite  pressure  from many  sources the   madness of   Scottish Government  dogma on this  subject continues to fly in the face of common sense and respect  for  patient  opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following submission was made by SODS  to the Primary and Community Care  Division of the Scottish Executive on 6^th June and was acknowledged under reference number CofE/059.  Which indicates at least 58 other responses.

1

SODS Forum Group Input to the Control of Entry Consultation Document

(All comments below refer to the paragraph numbers in Annex A of the Scottish Executive   Consultation Document.)

Para 37   Yes. With proviso that  all decisions and  the  reasons for the decisions  are  recorded  and  are  readily  available  for  public  access. As with the  PPC and  NAP procedures  there  must  be a  right  to appeal  against  such an NHS Board decision provided  there  are  reasonable and justifiable  reasons for  such an appeal.

Para 38   Yes.

Para 39   Would prefer 24 months to avoid placing unwanted stress on local communities and their existing NHS services. It is assumed that this will cover all applicants and will apply unless there are demonstrably significant changes in the neighbourhood structure.

Para 40  Yes.  With proviso that more clarity  is  required  in respect  of  the  proposals in Para 19.  Boards must take much more care in assessing local patient preferences rather than following a standard ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Para 43  Yes. Provided  relocated  premises  comply with all relevant  requirements regarding internal and  external planning  in accordance  with  both local and NHS planning  and  building  control legislation.  Particular attention must be given to providing disabled access.

Para 45    Yes. Provided relocated premises comply as in our Para 43 above.

Para 47  Yes.   We most strongly support proposals a) and b).  We regard the right to respond of those GPs directly involved as vital in the process.  GPs, must be informed directly and not through a third party.

2

Para 49  We endorse  the  Scottish Government’s intention to expect  NHS boards to engage with the public but  rather  than ‘expect’  we  wish to see such  engagement  ‘directed’ as a mandatory  part of  the  process. Representation by or on behalf of any person directly affected is vital in the   decision making process at Area Board, PPC and NAP levels. Much more clarity is required on how this consultation is to be achieved by Area Boards and is recorded for consideration as part of the PPC and NAP processes.  We further believe it is essential that public input and especially input from the affected neighbourhood’s vulnerable and disabled persons is admissible. Input must be actively sought from those unable to easily access public meetings, internet or telephone facilities. This input needs to be a mandatory part of Board, PPC and NAP decision processes.  At present such input is not part of the decision process at any level. This must be changed. Nothing less will be acceptable to the public following recent cases.

Para 53  Yes. In principle we agree but care must be taken to ensure that nominations are vetted to ensure impartiality and no conflict of interest would arise should they be selected to serve on a PPC

Para 54  It would be  helpful to have  nominations  from other  health professionals provided  there is  impartiality and no  conflict of  interest on specific  PPC or  NAP  cases.  It is also worth considering whether local community representation might be allowed.  We need to see much more ‘balancing’ of the committee composition in both PPCs and NAPs.  Pharmacists are only one cog in the wheel of health provision and must not continue to dominate the outcome of PPCs and NAPs as is the case under existing legislation.

Para 56  Guidelines on what is ‘Essential’ and what is ‘Desirable’ need  to be  quantified and  much more  clearly  laid out in the ‘Statutory Test’ It is  a fact that many of  the  concerns  we  now  see  resulting  from applications  are  due

3

to the arbitrary and  quite haphazard  nature of  PPC and NAP  deliberations.  The public has lost trust in the present situation.  Decisions taken are often incomprehensible and contrary to the reality of the situation. This should not   happen if all important factors were allowed be recorded and to be taken into account.

A standard format for recording proceedings at both PPC and NAP levels is essential to demonstrate accountability and fairness in the overall process.

Training of members should include  basic awareness of   local transportation issues, disability access, demographic data  and  local  regulations  pertinent  to  both NHS and local planning  and  building  regulations. In particular basic knowledge of the Statutory Code of Practice on Disability Rights as it affects NHS Scotland is essential.   Some understanding of the provisions of Scottish Health Planning Note 36, Part 3, on Community Pharmacy Premises would also greatly assist Boards, PPC and NAP members to establish what is desirable and what is essential in such applications.  Such awareness would  help PPCs and  NAPs  to avoid  the  errors of  past decisions which have  caused  much anger, concern and  bewilderment amongst  the  public and local NHS staff.

Para 59   YES. With proviso that PPCs must deal much more robustly with applications than at present.  Since 50% of current applications go to appeal something is clearly wrong.

Para 62 Emphatically  NO.  To  forbid such appeals  would  deny  the   natural democratic  right of  those  opposed  to the  decision to submit evidence to support  their appeal on the  grounds  that the  decision reached  was unreasonable or  illegal.

Para 65 YES.  With proviso that NAP are made fully aware of all the proceedings from the PPC decision process.

4

Para 68 The proposal is broadly welcomed as the present representative set up has inflicted a grave disservice upon local communities.  A much broader representation is required amongst fewer members on the NAP.

Additional Comment

In the statement outlining the consultation process we note that the Executive are seeking to ‘indicate the need for policy development or review’ and ‘to inform the development of a particular policy’.  SODS wish to make the following points in this regard:-

The review cannot be considered complete without considering  the following factors.

1      It  appears  that  no attempt  within the  consultation document has  been made  to strengthen the  application of  the  Pharmacy (Scotland) Regulations  by either incorporating or  requiring adherence to the  necessary  standards required  to ensure a new pharmacy  operates in accordance with best  practice in terms of  internal  layout and external access.

Current  planning  laws  do not  adequately  cover this  and the  Royal Pharmaceutical  Society’s  licensing  system  fails  completely  to ensure  the  same.  It is  suggested  that  Scottish Health Planning  Note  36, which is  a comprehensive  document  covering  such circumstances, be made an integral requirement of  the  approval process  and  failure  to comply with essential standards  should  result in rejection of an application for all new  pharmacy  outlets.  Only by doing so can Scotland ensure that best NHS standards possible in both new community and commercial pharmacy premises will be achieved.

2 In view of  the requirements of  Disability Equality Duty 2006 legislation it  would  be   appropriate  that  meeting  the  conditions imposed  by  such

5

legislation in respect of  carrying out  an Impact  Assessment  be an integral part of the process in  each PPC and NAP  decision.

3      Consideration needs  to be  given to speeding up the  current  timescale  surrounding  applications  from  start  to finish .  The   strain on both local communities, GPs  and  their  current  support staff  have  often  reached  quite  unacceptable  levels.  Patients  want  their  doctors  to spend  the  majority of  their   working time  and  expertise on patient  care,  not fighting off repeated lengthy and often unreasonable  applications  affecting  them, their  staff and   their  patients.

4 Sir  Menzies  Campbell, MP, raised a  most  important  point  when he  stated with regard  to the  Leuchars pharmacy  approval “that the  decision might  be susceptible  to judicial review on the  grounds  that  no reasonable  tribunal  could  have  reached it”.  This  goes  to the  heart of  the  problem as  far  as the  public  are  concerned.  In  reviewing  the  Control of  Entry  regulations attention needs  to be  concentrated on the   absolutely vital necessity  to avoid ever again reaching  this  sort of  outcome at NHS Area  Board, PPC and  NAP levels.

Signed.

Alan Kennedy: ---On behalf of SODS (Save Our Dispensing Surgeries) Forum Group.

3, Smithy Lane

Balmullo, St Andrews, Fife

KY16 0FG

Tel 01334  870378

6^th June 2010

IMPORTANT - Latest  News  as at 19^th May 2010

SODS has  learned  that  a  very unhelpful and  totally  false  rumour has been started  regarding  the  Guardbridge  Shop.  Guardbridge is  the   nearest  village  to Leuchars.  The  rumour  is that  the  owner of  the  shop has  sold  the  premises  to the  Leuchars  postmaster.  The latter  , by leasing  part of  the  Post Office  premises,   brought about  the  unwelcome  application for   a commercial pharmacy  which is  now  the  subject of  great  concern locally.

The  rumour that  the  shop has  been sold  is  totally untrue and only  serves  to muddy  the  waters  around  the  Leuchars  pharmacy  case.  SODS hope  that  this  note  will be the  last  word on the  matter.

SODS are  delighted  to welcome   newly  formed ‘Millport  SODS’ to the  fight  against unwanted  pharmacy  applications.  The  forum group has  just  been formed by  concerned  Millport patients following  the  application for  a commercial pharmacy  by a Mr  Semple, a name  now  well known to all involved with such cases.

Millport  SODS will hold  their  first  public meeting on 8^th June in the  Town Hall, It  will be  attended  by the  local MSP plus  local councillors and  the  practice  doctors  will  explain how  the  application for  a  commercial pharmacy  may seriously impact on  local community NHS services.  Information on the Millport   challenge can be found on www.s1Millport.com

SODS concerned  about  the  Leuchars  pharmacy  approval have  now  formally   used  the  Freedom of  Information legislation to ask  FIFE NHS whether  an Impact  Assessment  on the  Leuchars pharmacy  application was  carried  out  prior  to the  PPC approval.  SODS understand this is required under  the  Disability  Equality Duty 2006  legislation.  Failure  to do so can result in the  Equality  and Human Rights  Commission taking  court  action to commence  a  judicial review.  Whilst pharmaceutical premises are  not   covered  by the  legislation NHS dispensing  services  are.  So far  FIFE NHS have  failed  to answer a  question to them  by SODS on whether  such action was  taken  and  now  have  until 11^th June  to make  a  response  under  the NHS  FOI procedures.

The Scottish Parliamentary Petitions Committee will meet to consider  the  latest  position on PE1220 on 29^th June.  It is  understood  that at least two MSPs will be  submitting  papers  illustrating  the  damage  to rural NHS services  now  being  caused by commercial pharmacy  applications.  Nowhere is  this  more  evident  than Leuchars  where the  surgery serving  Leuchars  has  already   taking  steps  to run down its  services  locally.  It is  anticipated  that  the  Leuchars  surgery  will close down completely  within the  next  year with all medical services  being  concentrated on Balmullo.  NO decision has  yet  been made  by FIFE NHS on how  long  the  Balmullo dispensary  can continue.  So much for  our  faith in the  NHS to look after  patients’ interests.  It   is up to the  public  to protest   against  these  closures and  SODS urge  all interested  patients  to make  their  views  known  by submitting their  concerns via the  public consultation process  now ongoing to revise  Scottish pharmacy  regulations.   Only  in Scotland has  the  value of  such services  not been properly recognised  and  the  services  themselves  protected.  It  would  appear  that  some  totally  misguided political dogma is  preventing  the  responsible  Scottish ministers  and  the  NHS Primary  and  Community  Care  Directorate from protecting  patient  services.  What  we  are  facing  now  would  simply  not  be  allowed in England or  Wales

Details of how individuals can make their  views  known in the  consultation process  to amend  current  regulations may be found  at:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/03/22110058/0

The  latest  date  for  submissions is  11^th June  2010

SODS are  already  engaged in drawing  up their  submission on this  consultation process.  We hope  many  more  will be   prepared  to do so before  further  damage is  done  to NHS services in rural areas

Latest  news as at 7^th May 2010

It is  understood  that  work has  now  started  to install a pharmacy into the Leuchars  Post  Office  premises.  SODS also understands  this  pharmacy  will be  operational by 1^st June, 2010.  It  will be  'interesting' to see  how  disabled  access is enabled.

Whilst  this  may be a setback in terms of  the  Leuchars population’s  overwhelming wish to retain the  present   surgery dispensing  services  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  Leuchars  surgery  will be  allowed  to continue  to dispense to patients  up to 31^st  May, 2011.

A great  deal is  still happening regarding  both the  PPC and  NAP decisions  to allow  this  pharmacy .  Much of it  cannot  yet be   published on this  website as we  are  awaiting  decisions  and  information on matters  which require  some  considerable  research by a number of  parties

However SODS and  no doubt  Leuchars  Community  Council will continue  to work for  the  best  outcome  for  all patients in what  has  become  a  very important  case  as  far as  current  Scottish  pharmacy  regulations  are  concerned.  The  story  has  not  yet  ended.

Latest  news  as  at  5th May 2010

Latest  News  as at 24^th April  2010

• Iain Smith, MSP, has    written to Nicola  Sturgeon, Cabinet  Secretary  for  Health and Wellbeing in the  Scottish Government expressing  his  concerns about the  National Appeals  Panel hearing  that  finally  approved  the  Leuchars  Pharmacy application.  In particular  he  draws  attention to the potential for  a conflict  of  interest between members of  the  Appeal Panel as well as  the  serious  breach of natural justice  which saw hundreds of  letters of  objection ruled inadmissible by the  Chair.  Mr Smith has asked the Cabinet Secretary to intervene and instruct a fresh hearing.  We still await  a response  to this  letter submitted on 2^nd  April
• The  question has  also arisen as  to whether an Impact  Assessment  was  conducted on the  Leuchars  pharmacy application in accordance  with  Disability  Equality  Duty, 2006, legislation which  requires this  to be  done  when any  change is made  to a service  affecting  disabled  people.  Fife  Area  NHS have  been asked  by SODS whether  this  was  carried  out   and if  not  why  not  since  the  legislation specifically  covers NHS  prescription services.   A response  is  awaited.
• On April 20^th the Scottish Parliamentary  Petitions  Committee   discussed  progress concerning  Petition 1220 .  This  petition seeks  to bring  about  changes in Pharmacy  (Scotland) Regulations to introduce fairer  and  more  democratic procedures in dealing  with pharmacy  applications  affecting  dispensing  doctors.  It has  already  produced one change in that  the public must  now  be  formally  consulted  as  part of  the process .  ( Vital to note  that  these  public consultations  are  still not  included as a mandatory  part of  the  decision process!)  The  committee  had before  them a  response  by the  petitioner, Alan Kennedy,  to the  recent announcement concerning the   Regulations consultation process now  issued by the  Scottish Executive.  Mr  Kennedy  expressed  his   concern about  the limited  nature of  the   items  for  consultation input  and  also about  the   failure  to address  some of  the  recent issues,  in particular  suitability of  premises,  arising from the  Leuchars  and  other  pharmacy  applications.  The  Committee agreed  to seek further  information regarding  these  concerns  from the  Executive.  The  Executive  have  been  asked  to respond  by 11^th May.
• Leuchars  Community  Council have  also written to the  Royal Pharmaceutical Society  to ask if  any  inspection was  carried out on the  proposed Leuchars  Pharmacy  area  within the  Post  Office.  It  will be interesting  to see  their  response    as  we suspect  the premises  were  registered  as  soon as  the  cheque  for  registration was  handed over.

Overall the  pressure is  mounting on the  Scottish Executive  to take  note  and  act  upon the  various  concerns now  being  expressed  in a  variety of  quarters over the  whole  issue of  pharmacy  applications  which affect  Dispensing  Doctors,  With further  applications, such as in Millport, again we understand  from a  certain Mr  Semple, it is  likely  that this  pressure  will grow.  This   matter has  a long  way to run yet.

If  your  local dispensing  surgery is  threatened  make  sure  you  involve  all levels of  local and  national government  to express your  concerns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latest   News  as at 2  April 2010

SODS are pleased  to repeat  the  following  message  from Leuchars  Community  Council.   This  message  corrects  the  information given in today's  Fife  Herald.

DISPENSING NEWS

The Leuchars surgery has been given approval BY NHS Fife Health Board to continue dispensing for one year following the opening of any Leuchars Pharmacy.

This is important news and all patients are being advised that they can continue to get their repeat prescriptions from the Leuchars  Surgery. Dispensing will continue there until the very last day permitted.

There is one important piece of information that all Leuchars patients on repeat prescriptions must understand.

Under current regulations if they should decide to get repeat prescriptions from any Pharmacy they will no longer be able to make use of the Leuchars G.P. Dispensing Services for existing or future prescriptions.

The NHS Fife Health Board have also made it clear that they will not make any ruling on Balmullo surgery dispensing  until such times the results of any appeal is known.

Carroll Finnie

Leuchars Community Council

Latest News  as at  31^st March, 2010

The  Leuchars  surgery  has  been given approval by NHS Fife  Health Board to continue dispensing  for one  year  following the opening  of  any  Leuchars  pharmacy.  This is  important  news and all patients  are  being  advised  to continue getting  repeat  prescriptions  from Leuchars  surgery.  Dispensing  will continue  from there until the  very  last   day permitted.

However  there is  one  important  piece of  information that all Leuchars  patients on repeat  prescriptions must understand.  Under  current  regulations if  they  should  decide  to get   repeat  prescriptions  from any  pharmacy, say in St Andrews or elsewhere, they  will no longer  be  able  to make use  of  the  Leuchars  GP dispensing  services for  existing or  future  prescriptions. This  looks  like another   matter to raise in the  process of  consultation on the  new  regulations.

The NHS Fife  Health Board  also have   made it  clear  they  will not  make any  ruling on Balmullo   surgery dispensing  until such time as the  results of  any  Appeal is  known.

The reprieve, albeit temporary  for  Leuchars,  is  welcome.  It is  foreseen that   the  vast  majority  of  patients  at  Leuchars  will continue  to    use  the  GP surgery  dispensing  service.  Especially so after the   recent  events  which have  caused  so much anger and protest.  It is  therefore  difficult  to see how  any  new  pharmacy  could  successfully operate at  a profit , at least  in the  first  year.  Indeed  many  patients, with long  memories, may wish to find  an alternative  to a Post Office  pharmacy after the  first  year   from its  opening and  who can blame  them.  If  the  NHS wish to bring  closer  working  between pharmacists  and  GPs the  Leuchars  case is  an excellent  example of  how  not  to go about it.

26^th March 2010

The Primary  and  Community  Care  Directorate  of  the Scottish Government  have  now issued, at  last, their  long  awaited consultation paper on the Control of  Entry  Arrangements relating  to NHS Pharmaceutical   Services. 

SODS will need time to study the proposals and comments must be submitted to the Directorate by 11th June 2010.  Our  first  thoughts  are mainly of  concern that it  fails  to adequately  address the   matter of  patient input to the application process  with regard  to applications  affecting  dispensing  doctors in rural areas.  Whilst  Scottish Parliamentary Petition 1220  has  brought  about  a requirement  for  Area  Health Boards  to consult  the  public this   consultation document  does  not make  such input a component  part of  the decision process.  Thus  Area  Health Boards  really  have  no obligation to  recognise  the  serious  concerns  that  many patients  have regarding  such applications and  take  note of  these in the  decision process.  If  democracy  is  to have  any  part in NHS policy  this  particular  matter  must  be  addressed both at PPC level and also within the National Appeal Panel.  Secondly current  regulations   coupled  with local planning laws can allow  a pharmacy  to open in an existing  commercial shop or  post office without  the  application meeting  the   standards  for  new pharmacies laid down in Scottish health planning  note 36, part 3 which is  now  being  applied  throughout  Health Board  Areas.  This is  a serious omission and  must  be   put  right  yet  the  consultation document  totally  ignores  this  major point.

These are just two of the   factors that SODS will be raising in their input to the   consultation process.  They  are  certainly  not  the only ones as  we  have  learned  much that  concerns us during  the  past 18 months  we have  been  in being.

19th March, 2010.  SODS understands  that  Lomond  Pharmacy  have  submitted  an application seeking  an Appeal on the  FIFE PPC decision not  to  grant  the  application for a Balmullo Pharmacy.  A decision on whether  this  appeal will be allowed is  now  awaited.

------------------------------------------------------------------- 

SODS 's position regarding  the Leuchars  Pharmacy as at 12th March 2010 

Leuchars and Balmullo Pharmacy Applications

SODS wishes to express its very deep regret and serious concern at the recent decision  week by  NHS Fife PPC to turn down the Balmullo Pharmacy Application in spite of the overwhelming support for it from local residents.  That, and the extraordinary outcome of the Leuchars Pharmacy application when again, contrary to the wishes of the local community, approval was given for a new Pharmacy within Leuchars Post Office, is a  situation which SODS believes demands further scrutiny. 

In ideal circumstances we would have sought a judicial review as we believe this action would have considerable merit but the costs associated with this are likely to be prohibitive.   However SODS will  offer support in any  way they  can to Leuchars Community Council if  and when  they  decide  to prepare  prepare a case for submission to the Scottish Ombudsman for investigation. 

At this stage it would be inappropriate to comment further on the Balmullo application until after  a decision on a possible appeal.  SODS will, however, continue to carefully monitor the Balmullo application as it progresses to a conclusion and may later decide whether it needs to be  given further  attention

SODS will continue to  support  Mr Alan Kennedy’s Scottish parliamentary petition 1220.  This has brought about government legislation to involve the public in cases like Balmullo and Leuchars and has resulted in the Scottish Government announcing a consultation process on the current unsatisfactory Scottish Pharmacy Regulations. SODS has been invited by the Scottish government to contribute to this now long overdue review as soon as it is launched.

News as at 19th February

SODS learned  today that the  application by Lomond Pharmacy to open a pharmacy within the Balmullo  surgery has  not  been approved  by the Fife Pharmacy Practices  Comittee despite  the overwhelming  communities'  support  for the application.  Until the minutes of the PPC are made available the grounds   for the refusal are not known and  the  possibility of an Appeal to the National Appeal Panel can not  be decided.

The SODS  forum are angry and dissappointed  that yet again community input seems  to count  for nothing  in the applications process and the conduct of  the relevant  committees and panels.  SODS expect  to make a further statement in due course on the next  actions in our  campaign to bring  both common sense and respect  for patient welfare into the pharmacy  approvals  process.  We will not  end our  campaign until this  has been achieved regardless of local setbacks  from time to time

Position  as at 25th January 2010