The historical context is important. For most of my working life, like my then colleagues, I have fulfilled both of these roles — but it was only in 2008 that we realised it. The advent of the new PSI created a new legal framework and language. Like all other owner/operators, we had little choice into which regulatory boxes we were slotted. Over the last decade, a negativity has begun to surround these roles.

Most pharmacists are realistic enough that they expect that it can sometimes be difficult in the profession, and there is a balance. We are now in a world where regulatory oversight is a hard fact of all professional lives. The problem with this is, in my opinion, that the view of many younger pharmacists has become distorted. They see it now as something excessive, which they simply no longer want to engage with. We are seeing for the first time, an extraordinary situation where quite a percentage of community pharmacies are operating without a named supervising pharmacist. Many superintendent pharmacists and owners are finding it increasingly difficult to attract people to this role. Looking at a well-known jobs site, there are 299 supervising pharmacist positions being advertised. This is an untenable position. When you have a distortion in the market like this, then it needs to be addressed. It is not enough to simply have a series of talking shops. You need to have active measures taken to address the underlying issues.

Much of the negativity around the role of supervising pharmacist appears to be in relation to the perceived inequity of responsibility that is placed on the pharmacist in that role. While they are rightly charged with ensuring that a pharmacy is being run in a safe manner, there is a feeling that they are extremely vulnerable, particularly when it comes to fitness to practice and the PSI. In my view there needs to be a recalibration and redefinition of the role of supervising pharmacist. In practical terms this already seems to be happening, given the statistics. However, we cannot lose sight of the reality that it is a legal requirement that all pharmacies have someone in this role.

Regulation, as we are constantly told, is a necessary aspect of any modern business. We should never lose sight of the reasons that we have it in the first place, as it ostensibly for the perceived public good. While no pharmacy business is perfect, most operate to a high standard. It is into this landscape that the Regulator treads. If they do the job correctly, we have a proverbial win-win. The public are protected, and businesses can thrive in the knowledge that everyone is following the same regulatory framework. Yet it is nuanced. There is an element of a chaotic system, where too much of a push in one direction can cause unexpected results somewhere else. As an avid follower of USA politics, I never found too much common cause with the more outlandish aspects of the Republican Party, but I definitely feel common cause with their drive to reduce over-regulation. We are in an era of persistent drug shortages, persistent pharmacist shortages, and a workforce facing enormous challenges. The Regulator is an arm of Government policy, yet it is missing the key function of feedback.

Currently there are elections for pharmacists on the PSI Council, it is time that they are accepted as having a representative role. The PSI is a political creation, it should recognise this. While concerns about regulatory capture are valid, they have been exaggerated and have created a rigid structure that is unfit for the modern profession. This can, and must, change.