The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 264 No 7097 p767-768
May 20, 2000 The Society

Branch representatives' meeting

Representatives want Society's public relations assessed for performance

On this and the following two pages we report on some of the motions discussed by branch representatives at their meeting on May 11.
See also:
Call for permanent BPSA office at Lambeth headquarters
Call for reconsideration of Council election canvassing
Conference success?
No support for electoral college for Society's presidential elections
Representatives want UCAS style scheme for preregistration placements
Branches want their role reviewed
Pros and cons of STV discussed
Representatives want earlier Council response to BRM motions
Branch representatives support emergency hormonal contraception from pharmacies

Branch representatives have supported a call from the Leeds branch for the Society's public relations activities to be assessed for performance and activity by an outside consultant body. Mr MURRAY WINER proposed the motion which read: "That it is the opinion of this meeting that the public relations activity of the Society should be assessed for performance and activity by an outside consultant body. Any suggestions made by the outside body should be acted upon as a priority expedient, within the budget allocated." Mr Winer said that, in August, 1999, the Council had resolved that there would be transparency in the performance of its members. In February, the Council had looked at the maintenance of professional competence of members. The army of public relations officers for the Society did a great job but were unpaid, and often called upon to speak to the media at short notice. In this day and age the approach to public relations should be more professional. Branches were frustrated, and wanted an independent appraisal of PR. Mr ROBERT DUNKLEY (Leeds) seconded the motion. Mrs JUNE JENKINS (Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan) queried whether it was wise to include the words "any suggestions made by the outside body should be acted upon". To put that much pressure on the activity of the Council might put it in a difficult position. She thought it would be better to omit "should be acted upon as a priority expedient" and say instead "should be considered and acted upon if deemed advisable". The amendment was accepted by the proposer of the motion.

Murray Winer: approach to PR should be more professional

Mr MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire) urged the meeting to vote against the motion, not because it was inappropriate to look at how public relations were handled, but because if there was a concern about the amount spent on public relations, it would be absurd to put scarce resources into the pockets of consultants. He suggested a better idea might have been to institute an internal audit of public relations within the Society and come up with suggestions as a result of that.
Mr ROGER MILLS (Slough) disagreed. What was behind the motion were severe reservations among branches about the quality of the information received from the Society's PR department. The Council needed to look at that aspect. He supported the motion, but urged the Council to take on board Mr Burden's comments that such an exercise might be expensive but an internal assessment was appropriate.
In response to the debate, Mr WINER said that quality did not come cheap and urged the meeting to judge the motion on its merits.
The motion was carried.

Non-pharmacy issues

A second motion relating to the Society's public relations activities was not successful. The Northumbrian branch proposed that "the Society assign a press officer to monitor developing political, sociological, moral and scientific issues and bring them to the attention of the Council, so that the Society might stimulate or authoritatively contribute on matters upon which a learned and committed profession might be expected to comment". Mr WASIM BAQIR, proposing the motion, said there had been little or no comment from pharmacy on matters of health which were not of a professional nature, eg, drug addiction, genetically modified food, worldwide antibiotic resistance. Pharmacists should have their own input into the debate on wider health issues, and the Society was ideally placed to monitor and respond to these issues. Mr MICHAEL JEPSON (Birmingham) formally seconded the motion. Mr TONY CARSON (South West Metropolitan), while he agreed with the motion, thought the assigning of a press officer would not meet the aims of the motion. The motion was lost. The PRESIDENT remarked that the Society now had Ms Eileen Neilson in place as head of its policy support unit and the public affairs directorate was liaising with her. As President, she suggested that the debate on issues such as those put forward by Mr Baqir was something that could be conducted at branch level and discussed at future BRMs. Thus would the Council be informed of the membership's views.

Wasim Baqir: need to input into debate on wider health issues

Database

Two other motions related to the Society's activities. The first, which was successful, called on the Society to improve and maintain its database to provide up-to-date records of the composition to its membership in relation to the nature of members' employment.
Mr JAMES BANNERMAN, proposing the motion on behalf of the Northern Scottish branch, said that the motion was intended to improve the data currently available to members. The profession was dynamic and its composition changed daily, so a system of updating regularly was needed. Members should inform the Society when they changed their job. The wrapper on the PJ could be amended so that any change could be notified to the Society. Perhaps an e-mail facility on the website could be available for this.
Ms ALISON MACROBBIE (Northern Scottish) seconded the motion. She noted that the availability of an up-to-date database would help with identifying locum cover.
Mr STAN WHEATLEY (Dorset) supported the motion. As a member of the Community Pharmacists Group and editor of CPA News, he knew the importance of having correct details on record so that members could receive correspondence.
The motion was carried.

Statutory Committee

The second motion was unsuccessful. Proposed by the West Metropolitan branch, the motion called for parity between disciplinary procedures undertaken by the Statutory Committee of the Society and those of other professions' regulatory bodies.
Proposing the motion, Mr MOHAMMED ASGHAR said that there had been a recent call by the King's Fund for clearer lines of accountability between professions. There had been well-known cases involving a doctor and a nurse or a doctor and a pharmacist where the nurse or pharmacist was struck off and the doctor was not because the regulatory principles were interpreted in different ways for different professions. With multidisciplinary working under shared care protocols, it was not appropriate for professionals working together to be treated differently.
Mr MARTIN HILL (West Metropolitan) seconded the motion.
Mr ROGER MILLS (Slough) thought the motion impractical. It implied that pharmacists were being hard done by by their Statutory Committee. They should be proud of their high standards and not seek to downgrade them, as implied by the motion.
Miss HEATHER ELLISTON (South East Metropolitan) agreed that other professions needed to raise their standards of regulation. Governments of all political hues wanted to see a level playing field in all professional activities funded from central taxation.
Mr MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire) supported Mr Mills's sentiments. He thought it was appropriate for pharmacists to set standards for pharmacy, and it was a nonsense to look at the way other professions disciplined their members. It was appropriate to take into account the general views of society as a whole about professional standards. If the Society did not set its own standards and administer them as currently, it would be a backward step. He urged the meeting to vote against the motion.
In response to the debate, Mr ASGHAR said the motion was in no way trying to suggest that the Statutory Committee needed to downgrade its standards. The sentiment was that other health care professionals should come up to the level and standard of the pharmaceutical profession.
The motion was lost.