Return to PJ Online Home Page
The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 264 No 7098 p800
May 27, 2000 The Society

Branch Representatives' Meeting

Call for reconsideration of Council election canvassing

See also:
Call for permanent BPSA office at Lambeth headquarters
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 Society's public relations assessed for performance
Representatives want earlier Council response to BRM motions
Branch representatives support emergency hormonal contraception from pharmacies

In a joint motion, which was successful, the Bristol branch and Slough branch proposed that the Council should reconsider the restrictions on canvassing by candidates in Council elections, including the use of the internet.
Proposing the motion, Dr ANGELA ALEXANDER (Slough) said that current restrictions on canvassing made it difficult for the electorate to differentiate between candidates. There was nothing available but a short description of biographical details and a policy statement. She had conducted a retrospective search of PJ Online and had found that existing Council members and those holding similar posts within the organisation had more "hits". A survey among independent community pharmacists had found that 74 per cent of pharmacists were in favour of candidates being allowed to canvass. The restrictions were intended to ensure that each candidate had an equal opportunity to present policies to the electorate, but the electorate needed the opportunity to assess candidates properly. The Council accepted that it was frustrating to candidates who could not comment on issues of interest to the profession, but it was even more frustrating for the electorate. She urged the meeting to vote for the motion and change the emphasis from giving candidates an equal opportunity to giving the electorate evidence on which to base their voting decision.
Mr ARTHUR HUNTLEY (Bristol) seconded the motion. He said that at present there was a lack of involvement because the present system of voting only by post was not inclusive. Greater use should be made of the internet to the benefit of everyone. It was more likely that pharmacists would use their vote if they could do it in that way.
The motion was carried.

Angela Alexander
Angela Alexander: frustrating for the electorate

Regional representation

A motion asking the Council to look at regional representation did not receive the support of the meeting.
The South Cheshire branch proposed that "the pros and cons of a Council composed both of members elected on a regional basis and those elected nationally should be investigated by Council in consultation with the membership and a report with recommendations would be presented to the membership no later than the AGM of 2001".
Mr BILL BROOKES proposed the motion. He said that a number of letters in the pharmaceutical press had expressed concern about three related matters: the lack of knowledge about Council candidates and members, the low turn-out of voters in Council elections, and an apparent lack of awareness in the Council of many of the concerns of members. These matters had been echoed in discussions with colleagues. The motion sought to improve the knowledge which at least some of the electorate would have of a number of Council candidates. The local electorate would be more likely to know more about candidates from their locality and would be more inclined to vote in a local contest. It would help breach the gap which existed at present between the Council and the membership and address the local electorate's concerns. Such a system would give local members a point of contact on Council with a good understanding of the concern of those members. It would be easier for hustings to be organised for a specific locality, which could be reached by both candidates and the electorate. The motion did not preclude some Council members being elected on a national basis, but the focus of accountability would be much sharper for a regional member. The 1989-90 Council report stated that the only argument in favour of regional representation was that the person elected would be expected to represent the interests of members in that particular area. That was manifestly not so. Its main thrust was that national and regional elections were mutually exclusive, but that was not so either: they were complementary and would add strength and balance to the Council.
Mr PETER AYRE (South Cheshire) seconded the motion. He said the involvement of the membership in such an exercise was crucial. The views of the rank and file members should be obtained in coming to a decision. The Council was being asked to investigate the pros and cons of the proposal and to report back.
Mr BRUCE RHODES (Cheltenham and Gloucester) spoke against the motion. He was happy to regard every Council member as representing him, wherever they came from. One of the difficulties with regional representation was that it was difficult to stand against a sitting member in a particular region, whereas with a national election the best candidate surfaced.
Mr BROOKES (South Cheshire) admitted that the points made by Mr Rhodes were valid.
The motion was lost.

Devolution

Branch representatives failed to support the Hull branch's proposal that the Council should review ways of devolving some of its powers in England to regionally elected members who met within a structure similar to that of the Welsh and Scottish Executives of the Society.
Proposing the motion, Mr MEL SMITH said that with the establishment of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament it was becoming more obvious that to organise pharmacy centrally within the United Kingdom was not realistic. There should be an English Executive along the lines of the Scottish and Welsh ones to represent pharmacists from all sectors, whether from hospitals, locums, education, industry and the National Health Service, which could even devolve some of its responsibilities to regional committees. This would reduce some of the workload of Lambeth and increase the sense of involvement of the membership, especially in England. It would act as a conduit for communication of important information to and from the Council and be representative of all branches of the profession. This would reinvigorate regional and local branches.
Dr ANDREW HERSOM (Hull) seconded the motion. He said Lambeth was remote and secretive and decision-making was too centralised. With the advent of Welsh and Scottish devolution, he suggested that the Council should consider regional administration as part of its corporate governance.
Dr MARTIN KING (Mid Glamorgan East) spoke against the motion, saying that the Society's Welsh Executive and Scottish Executive existed to negotiate with their respective Departments of Health. The Council negotiated directly with those who mattered, and he saw no need for regional representation.
The motion was lost.

Mel Smith
Mel Smith: there should be an English Executive