Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I welcome Canice Ward, CEO of the Pharmaceutical Society in the North; and David McCann, head of regulatory strategy at the Pharmaceutical Society. You are very welcome. I will now hand over to you.

Mr Canice Ward (Pharmaceutical Society NI): Thank you, Chair, Deputy Chairperson, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to brief the Committee on our proposed legislative amendment.

By way of background, the Pharmaceutical Society was formed in 1925, and for more than 100 years has regulated and supported the pharmacy profession. As a regulator, the society sets educational standards for those wishing to become pharmacists and join our register, sets standards and guidance for pharmacists wishing to remain on the register, and ensures that pharmacists across Northern Ireland remain fit to practise and so remain on the register. The society sets standards for pharmacy premises across Northern Ireland. On our register, we have 3,100 pharmacists, about 200 students and 537 registered pharmacy premises. The pharmacy profession continues to evolve rapidly, particularly with the emergence of newly qualified pharmacists as independent prescribers

to strengthen integrated care across community, GP and hospital settings.

The society is governed by an appointed council of 14 members, comprising seven lay members and seven registrant or pharmacist members, and is led by our president, Dr Geraldine O'Hare. Some of you have met Geraldine. She sends her apologies. She could not make the meeting today but hopes to meet in a number of weeks' time. The professional leadership obligations of the Pharmaceutical Society are delivered by our pharmacy forum NI department, which is overseen by a management board comprised entirely of registered pharmacists. The board acts as a delegated committee of the council.

We are here to discuss our proposed draft statutory rule, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026, and to outline why those legislative amendments or proposals are necessary to support the continued sustainability and effectiveness of the society in meeting its statutory duties. The council's regulation-making powers under our primary legislation, the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, must utilise those powers to amend the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994 by making the aforementioned statutory rule.

The proposed statutory rule, which is subject to negative resolution, contains two key amendments or changes: an increase to pharmacists' initial registration and annual retention fee, which is an uplift from £398 to £477; and, secondly, adding an email notification as an alternative to postal-only communications for the fee demand and retention reminders for pharmacist trainees and students who are hoping to join our register. In addition, the society proposes to introduce payment by instalments as opposed to a one-off lump sum. The society originally proposed making legislation to enable that but got advice suggesting that it could be done on an administrative basis and did not require legislative change.

For organisational and financial context, the society derives income from two main sources. The first is fees from pharmacists when initially registering with the society; and from the retention fee charged to those wishing to remain on the register, which is collected annually. The second income source is from fees charged to those wishing to register pharmacy premises and to retain the premises on the register, which is also charged annually.

The pharmacist registration and retention fees were last increased in 2016, and it is those fees that we hope to change. The premises fees, which are separate and were last increased in 2011, fall under the remit of the Department of Health and are not part of this legislative proposal. The increase in regulatory requirement costs, combined with inflation and static income levels, have produced significant financial pressures on the society. Since 2021, the society has operated at a deficit, relying on its reserves to maintain essential functions. Those reserves have eroded, and additional revenue is now required to ensure that the society can remain solvent, continue to operate and protect patients and the public effectively.

To support the proposals, the society held an eight-week public consultation between 27 January and 24 March 2025. The consultation gathered 750 responses through surveys, engagement events and written submissions. Whilst the majority of those who responded opposed the fee increase, there was clear support for a flexible payment structure and communications options.

Our council considered the responses carefully at an extraordinary public meeting on 15 April 2025 and concluded that the fee increase was unavoidable to ensure the long-term sustainability and continued delivery of a statutory function in the public interest. The council felt that the level of increase, while significant, is below inflation and strikes the right balance between ensuring the financial viability and sustainability of the society, while trying not to overburden the pharmacists who pay the fee. It is envisaged that the introduction of the flexible fee structure by way of instalment will lessen the burden on those who pay the fee.

The society is mindful of the cost-of-living pressures that we all face, but it has an obligation to deliver core statutory functions for the benefit of the Northern Ireland public and the pharmacy profession. Any legislation made by the society requires departmental approval, and that was received in December 2025. We are here today to seek approval to make the legislation, with the aim of its coming into operation by 1 June 2026, which aligns with our upcoming annual retention period.

The section 75 equality screening concluded that there was no adverse impact on any protected group. The amendments will have financial implications for pharmacists but are considered essential to ensure a safe and functioning regulatory system. The proposals are fully compatible with section 24 of the 1998 Act.

The society has reached this point after extensive engagement, detailed financial planning and careful balancing of the burdens placed on registrants with the absolute necessity of maintaining a resilient and high-performing regulator. The proposed amendments represent proportionate and essential steps to ensure that we can continue to protect our patients, support the pharmacy profession and meet our statutory responsibilities both now and in the years ahead. We welcome your questions and look forward to assisting the Committee with its scrutiny of this important legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Thank you very much. What are the advantages and benefits of the North having its own pharmaceutical society? Can you outline how that benefits pharmacies and patients across the North?

Mr Ward: There is a benefit in having a local regulator. We have a fully devolved health system, and we have a regulator that understands our health system and its policies.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): What decisions are made that would be different if we did not have our own regulator? I am trying to work out the benefits for people of having our own regulation. Can you give me some more detail?

Mr Ward: There is a local nature and element because pharmacy businesses have a community feel. They can phone the society and know who works in the society as opposed to a larger organisation. There may be cons with that situation as well.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Is there much engagement between the pharmacy sector and the society on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis?

Mr Ward: We have regular engagement with the different groups, such as Community Pharmacy NI (CPNI), the Ulster Chemists' Association Northern Ireland and other representative bodies on matters that we are consulted on or policies that are being developed. We take into consideration their views in developing policies.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): The regulations propose an increase in fees. You mentioned CPNI. I do not want to put words into their mouth, but they wrote to the Committee to oppose the regulations. However, there has been some further engagement. Have those issues been resolved?

Mr Ward: The fee increase will not be welcomed by the majority of pharmacists, and the consultation responses noted that. The society has an obligation to regulate pharmacies and to produce and publish standards. There has been an improvement in our performance, which produces the standards and guidance to support and help pharmacists and pharmacies to function.

Miss McAllister: Thank you very much. We have had some correspondence opposing the 20% increase in the fees. You mention in your paper that there has been an increase in the fees to meet your statutory obligations, and you have highlighted that before. Can you highlight the statutory obligations that you are at risk of not meeting if you do not increase the fees? You might not have chosen the obligations, but can you outline a few of the statutory obligations that could be at risk?

Mr Ward: All of them, Nuala. Do you want me to elaborate on them?

Miss McAllister: It is important for us to have more information on the statutory obligations.

Mr Ward: The obligations are that we register pharmacists and pharmacy premises and ensure that anyone on the register is fit to practise and remains on the register. We set standards and guidance to support pharmacists, but, ultimately, we exist to protect the public.

Miss McAllister: Do you carry out reviews? How do you make sure that they meet the standard?

Mr Ward: There are numerous examples across all healthcare professions where a practitioner has not met the standard. The Pharmaceutical Society, as with every other healthcare regulator, takes action to sanction the practitioner and prevent them from practising.

Miss McAllister: Is that demand-led with referrals? Is it a routine examination?

Mr Ward: Anyone can make a complaint or raise a concern with the Pharmaceutical Society about a practitioner or a premises. Over recent years, the cost of litigation for the complaints has impacted on the organisation.

Miss McAllister: You will be aware that we had a two-and-a-half-hour session with Community Pharmacy about the funding, the sector's concerns about sustainability, the claw-back and the precarious position of funding. There is a concern that the fee increase will exacerbate that position. Are there any measures other than instalments? What about those who are in financial difficulties and at risk of closure? Are there any other safeguards for those cases?

Mr Ward: The fee is for registrants. Those at risk of closure would be premises, and that is not under consideration today. The fee is for individual pharmacists.

Miss McAllister: If a pharmacist's premises is at risk of closure, the pharmacist will often supplement the funding for the bills rather than pay salaries. I understand that the registration of the premises and the pharmacist is a separate matter, but the money that comes into the business may have to be supplemented by the pharmacist. Therefore, the fee increase will still have an impact. Can you assess that impact for financial hardship or assistance?

Mr Ward: We work under archaic primary legislation from 1976. We do not have the power to set a variable fee structure, but we have introduced instalments or a direct debit. We have also enhanced communications on claiming tax relief on the registration and retention fee. At present, we are unable to set a lower or a higher fee for certain individuals or pharmacies.

Miss McAllister: I understand that, and that has been helpful, particularly the tax relief, which is an important measure. It may seem small, but it is still important. Thank you. It is difficult for us, given that there was 97% opposition to the increase. I see that Community Pharmacy has said that it is opposed to it, but also that it understands that sustainability is important.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Canice. I declare an interest, as I am the chair of the all-party group on community pharmacy. Like Nuala, I have heard from a lot of pharmacists who are very concerned about this. They see it as a large increase in their fees at a time when they are already under financial stress. The Committee has heard about that, time and again.

I have also heard about what pharmacists describe as a lower standard of service, which I think was outlined in communications. My office corresponded with you about a pharmacist wanting to align with a pharmaceutical society in Canada so that they could register to work there. I had quite a long correspondence on that, which was not resolved. Are you aware of that correspondence? Can you explain how the registration in Northern Ireland may not align with Canada or, possibly, with other countries?

Mr Ward: I was aware of that. There has been correspondence from a number of MLAs on various international registration rates, Danny. It is part of a wider piece of ongoing work across all healthcare regulators to map the differences in initial education and training and how our standards and those of other UK regulators align with the wider piece — Canada, Australia or AN Other country, for example — so that we can be assured. Work is to be conducted so that we can assess their undergraduate degrees, qualifications etc to ensure that they align with UK standards before we allow the person applying to join our register or any other UK register. Work on that is ongoing.

Mr Donnelly: OK. My understanding is that the advice to the pharmacist that I am talking about was to register with the GB pharmaceutical regulator.

Mr Ward: At present, there is a method whereby they could complete an overseas pharmacists assessment programme with the GB regulator, which looks at applicants' undergraduate qualifications, competencies etc to see how they align. They can complete a one- or two-year training course to supplement any deficiencies and get them up to speed with the UK regulations.

Mr Donnelly: OK. Do you recognise the difference in the level of service between GB and Northern Ireland?

Mr Ward: I do. As a healthcare regulator, we are here primarily to protect the public. I recognise the disparity in the level of service, but we are making improvements. The Chair will have received communication from our regulator yesterday, highlighting those improvements. I recognise, however, that there is still work to be done.

Mr Donnelly: OK.

Mr Robinson: Canice, we appreciate your coming to the Committee. It is a wee bit of difficult one, to be frank. As you know, Committee members are lobbied extensively, week in, week out, month in, month out, about the pressures facing community pharmacies, not only in this mandate, but in the previous mandate and in the mandate before that.

Yet, today, we are being asked to put more pressure on community pharmacies. We have the request for a 20% increase in registration fees, and, I note from the document that you provided to the Committee, that you are lobbying the Department for an increase in premises fees. All the while, we receive correspondence from pharmacists, some of which is quite scathing, Canice. I will read some of it. Some of it refers to "incompetence" and saying:

It goes further. A response refers to there being "Resentment" towards the professional body.

Moreover, correspondence from someone who wished to remain anonymous refers to staff in the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland reportedly winning employment tribunal cases for unfair dismissal, the settlements for which were funded by registrants' fees.

Hopefully, Canice, you can clarify some of that because we are caught in the middle. We have pharmacists telling us that things are very bleak and that there is a lack of trust in your organisation, yet you are asking us to approve fees that 97% of pharmacists oppose. Hopefully, you can provide some clarity. It is not an attack on you. Please do not take it that way. Just try to clarify that so that the Committee can understand because we are in the middle of this.

Mr Ward: I certainly understand some of that sentiment. The society has gone through a period of turmoil. We have our own regulator in the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, which has recognised that. Last year's report was very poor, and that is representative of the outcomes and performance of the organisation. We have made improvements in this year's report, and I do not know whether the draft report has been shared with members yet, but, if not, I am sure that it will be soon. We are making improvements in our organisational performance. We are not immune to criticism; we recognise that we can and must do better. You will appreciate that I cannot comment on industrial tribunal matters in a public forum other than to say that they were not paid for out of registrants' money. I cannot say much more than that.

Mr Robinson: They were not? OK.

I would like to ask a silly question. The fees have not been uplifted since 2016. Why have there not been small incremental increases rather than what some perceive to be a very large increase?

Mr Ward: It is an obvious question. I have been in post for a year, so I cannot comment on past reasonings, but it was probably multifactorial. We are stuck with an archaic mechanism whereby we have to make a statutory rule to increase our fee. We are exploring whether that could be linked to the consumer prices index (CPI) or the retail prices index (RPI) or some inflationary measure so that we are not here every year. It costs us a lot of money and resource in drafting and legal expertise to make the statutory rule.

Over that 10-year period, the society was able to absorb some of the inflationary pressures through its reserves, particularly during COVID, as it was felt not appropriate to increase the fee during that busy time. We work closely with the Department in any legislation that we make. Departmental work priorities over recent times have been on the COVID response, the Windsor framework, Brexit etc. If we are being honest, there was a time when there was no Assembly, so we could not make a statutory rule or it probably would not have been seen as a priority to progress through the mechanisms that were in place at the time. It was multifactorial, but should it have been done through small inflationary increases? Of course it should.

Mr Robinson: OK. Thanks, Canice.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Regarding some of the issue that you raised, Alan, you said, Canice, that we got the letter. We got the letter yesterday. It has not been shared with members yet. It is in next week's pack. Last year,11 of the 18 standards were met, and, this year, 14 of the 18 standards have been met, so there is improvement. That is important.

Mrs Dodds: I was just going to ask about that. Is there an improvement plan for the society —

Mr Ward: There is.

Mrs Dodds: — and is that in the letter that has been shared with us?

Mr Ward: An embargoed report from the Professional Standards Authority will be published on Wednesday of next week.

Mrs Dodds: I think that that is important. Alan is absolutely right. Given that, as a group, pharmacists in Northern Ireland are saying, "We're not getting the service that we need, but you're asking us to pay increased fees", it is incumbent on us to ask about the improvement plan and how standards will improve before giving consent to the SL1 to increase fees. That is a reasonable way to proceed, because we have to be satisfied that, if you are increasing fees, you will improve the service that people get for those fees.

I do not need to go over everything that everybody else has said, but I, too, have had considerable correspondence on the issue expressing dissatisfaction etc, so — I know that we will talk about this later — I really would like to see the improvement plan and be assured that things are moving in the right direction before we deal with the SL1.

Mr Ward: It is two-fold, Diane. I take those comments on board; they are right. However, to make improvements, we need to spend money. We are operating in 2026 with the income that we had from 2011 to 2016, and we are asking for a below-inflation uplift on that. Whilst the sum might be significant, which we acknowledge, it is not in line with or above inflation, and, if we are to improve, it is much needed. I do not think that it is an egregious figure. To make improvements — to respond to that — we need to invest.

Mrs Dodds: Your improvement plan will tell us what those improvements are, but we have not seen it yet. OK; that is fine. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Danny, are you looking to come in again?

Mr Donnelly: Thanks, Chair, for letting me in again. I will build on something that Canice said. You said that you had not increased fees in many years and that you have eaten into your reserves. That strikes me as an incredibly bizarre way to run what is an official regulator of healthcare in Northern Ireland. What are you doing to ensure future financial stabilisation?

Mr Ward: As I said, we generate income from two main sources: fees paid by registrants; and premises fees. With this SR, we hope to increase our income from registrants, and we are working with the Department to progress a consultation on an increase in premises fees.

Mr Donnelly: You mentioned linking increases to inflation rather than coming back every year. That sounds eminently sensible, as Alan pointed out. Do you plan to do that to avoid there being such a big jump in future?

Mr Ward: It is something that we hope to do. We are exploring whether it is possible, within the confines of the legislation, to put into a future statutory rule something that says, "Here's the fee: it will increase in future years" in line with CPI or RPI or by specific figures. You will certainly find efficiencies within resource and spend at our end as well.

Mr Donnelly: OK. Thank you, Canice.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I have a final question, Canice. You are asking us to make a decision on the SR. Will there be any impact if we decide to take a week to read the report and make the decision next week as opposed to this week?

Mr Ward: We hope to lay the legislation around the week commencing 23 March. The annual retention period is from 1 June to the end of June. By 1 June, we need assurance that the SR will be made and that it will come into operation for that date.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): A week will not make any difference.

Mr Ward: I do not think so, but we need adequate time to communicate with and notify pharmacists, telling them what the fee will be and that we can collect direct debits.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): That makes sense. OK. There are no other questions. Thank you very much for coming to us.

Mr Ward: Thank you.