The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7179 p896-900
22-29 December 2001

Main points

Retention fees The Privy Council has approved increases in the Society's retention fees (last week, p869)

Museum A way forward for the museum has been adopted (last week, p870)

Conference A strategy has been agreed for the development of the British Pharmaceutical Conference (last week, p870).

Remuneration The Council agreed to work alongside the PSNC over remuneration for pharmacy contractors (last week, p869 and p871).

Technician regulation The Society is to move towards the mandatory regulation of pharmacy support staff (p895).

Branches and regions The Council has approved a range of proposals designed to help ensure that the Society's branch and regional networks can contribute to the future of the profession.

CPD The Council has approved the composition and remit of its Continuing Professional Development Implementation Committee (p898).

Advertising The Council has agreed a policy statement expressing reservations about the value of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescribed medicines (p899).

Infringements The Council's Infringements Committee is in future to meet monthly with power to order a prosecution or to refer a complaint of misconduct direct to the Statutory Committee (p900).

Attendance

Action to ensure that branches and regions contribute to profession's future

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council has approved a number of proposals designed to help ensure that the Society's branch and regional networks can contribute to the future of the profession (see Panel below). The proposals had arisen from "Shaping up for the future", the consultative review of how the local networks can contribute to the future of the profession.

At its December meeting, the Council was reminded that in August (PJ, 18 August, p241) it had received a discussion document mapping out the results of the "Shaping up for the future" review of the branch and regional structure. The Council had agreed that the document should be the focus of the meeting of branch and regional secretaries in October. That meeting had been attended by 62 branch and regional secretaries. The feedback from the meeting had been matched with the feedback from the earlier regional review meetings to produce a document setting out a number of initial proposals, which were before the Council.

Dr NICOLA GRAY said that thanks were due to all those involved in the consultation. The Society now knew a lot more about life in the branches and in the regions. The enthusiasm of the local activists was infectious — and Council members should get out to the regions and branches to become infected. She hoped that the encouraging attendance at the branch and regional secretaries' meeting was in part due to the increased profile of the Society's efforts to optimise the local network. Expectations were being raised among activists in the local networks and the Council should take every opportunity to move things forward and not disappoint them.

What was the exercise trying to achieve? At a basic level it was to figure out how to engage pharmacists from the start of their careers in a culture of co-operation, professional reflection and exchange, which would lead to improved practice and improved services.

It was important to ensure that activities planned locally for pharmacy were outcome driven, so that people saw the value of what they were doing. It was the beginning of a sustained process for change.

One message from the consultation exercise was that the local network was underused for local and national policy making. Local expertise and experience were not being harnessed.

Although the work was about local networks, the implications were broader. Dr Gray encouraged the Council to look at the local networks as a vehicle for delivering all parts of its vision. For example, it should be looking at how it could use the local networks to deliver its continuing professional development objectives.

Presenting the proposals for the Council's approval, ALAN NATHAN said that they contained nothing revolutionary. Many of them provided guidance and structure that should be helpful for the branches. That was in line with the development of corporate governance.

During discussion on the proposals concerned with funding, Dr GRAY said that the aim was to ensure that branches made the best use of resources. If money was not being spent in one quarter then there could be guidance as to how it could be diverted to other quarters.

When the proposals on administrative support were considered, DIGBY EMSON said that some pharmacists gave a great deal of time to local branch activities and suggested that perhaps payment could be made by way of an honorarium.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that she could not see any problem with honorarium payments. The Society had to look at proper guidance on local fee payments and the implications for the individuals concerned as well as for the Society.

During consideration of the proposals relating to the role of the Council, Dr GRAY said that the branches and regions were disappointed at the level of attendance of Council members at their functions. The proposals aimed to improve the situation.

Mr NATHAN said that the proposal was for Council members to be involved in their own branches and also to get out to some of the other branches.

PETER CURPHEY said that Council members were seen as not caring about the branches and the regions and not interested in talking to them. There was also a belief that when Council members did attend meetings they wanted to talk about their personal agendas rather than about topics of interest to the profession.

KIRIT PATEL said he did not believe in making anything mandatory. He felt that Council members should be bound to the membership as a whole and not to any one particular sector.

Mr NATHAN said that they should lead by example. If Council members wanted branches to be supportive, they should be the first to support the branches. Complaints had been received about Council members who attended their local branch only once every three years to get nomination papers signed.

HEMANT PATEL said that he agreed with the sentiment of the proposal, but there were circumstances where it was not possible to participate fully because the Council member's own branch and region were moribund.

ASHWIN TANNA said he was happy to go to any branch to which he was invited.

Mr EMSON supported the proposal, which he felt should have a high priority.

Dr GORDON APPELBE said that many years ago Council members had complained that the branches never asked them to meetings. He was quite committed to go to any meeting to which he was invited, provided he had no prior commitments. He had been unable to attend his own branch meetings because of prior commitments.

Commenting on the proposal for a list of corporate topics for Council members to use as "official" Society speakers, SULTAN DAJANI said that a Council member should speak on a topic decided by the branch rather than something off a menu.

Mr CURPHEY said that the aim was to achieve some consistency in helping the members to discuss the issues that the Council thought the profession as a whole should be discussing. It did not prevent a Council member talking about any other topic at the same time. But Council members should have a way of disseminating things to members which they thought were important and which they ought to be discussing.

On the proposal about the attendance of preregistration trainees and tutors at branch meetings, Mr NATHAN said that the experience was that while preregistration trainees attended branch meetings, their tutors did not.

The VICE-PRESIDENT said that it was sometimes difficult for the tutor to accompany the preregistration trainee to a meeting.

On the proposal concerned with regional co-ordinators, Mr NATHAN said that the idea had been raised at most of the consultation meetings. The regions had experienced difficulty in finding a role.

Mr CURPHEY said that the regions had received the matter positively. It was believed strongly that some sort of regional co-ordination might revive some of the branches. He was anxious that the Council should not sit on consideration of the matter.

HASSAN ARGOMANDKHAH endorsed Mr Curphey's remarks. He also felt that the Council should bear in mind the role that "Pharmacy in a new age" co-ordinators could play.

CPD implementation committee

The Council approved the composition and remit of its Continuing Professional Development Implementation Committee (PJ, 13 October, p527). Its membership will include three Council members — Dr Phillida Entwistle (chairman), Alan Nathan and Kirit Patel. Three lay members will be a human resources development expert, an expert from another profession that is implementing a CPD programme and an advocate for patients and consumers. Other members will include a pharmacist actively engaged in delivering managed care NHS pharmaceutical services, a pharmacist actively engaged in delivering contracted NHS pharmaceutical services and a person from industry. The directors of pharmacy continuing education for England, Scotland and Wales will be invited to serve ex officio, and expert or experienced members will be co-opted from time to time as necessary.

The committee's remit is: to make proposals for the framework and the nature of regulations for CPD requirements for continuing eligibility to practise, including a draft definition of a "practising pharmacist"; to oversee the design, development and testing of a large-scale system for voluntary participation in CPD that can quickly be adapted to a system for mandatory participation; and to monitor the operation of the voluntary system.

Modernisation steering group

The Council confirmed the membership of the steering group for the Society's modernisation programme. The group is to hold its first meeting next month.

The group is to be chaired by the President and will include four other Council members, the Secretary and Registrar and the Society's Professional Development Director, Philip Green, who will act as project director. Other members will be one representative each from the Society's Scottish and Welsh Executives, an external lay member, an expert in governance and in law relating to chartered and statutory bodies, an expert in NHS and pharmacy policy and research, and a member of a health profession other than pharmacy.

Co-names

The Council agreed that, on grounds of public safety, the Society should continue its opposition to the granting of trade marks containing the element "Co-". The Council's concern is that "Co-names" can be so similar that they may lead to confusion in prescribing and dispensing.

The Council made its decision in the light of recent trade mark applications, and agreed that the Society should refer the matter to the National Patient Safety Agency. It would also write to the Medicines Control Agency and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency to explain its concern and ask that such products should not be given marketing authorisation, and would repeat this action for any future trade mark application beginning with "Co-".

The Society would write to the manufacturer who was asking for the trade mark registration pointing out the dangers to public safety, and, through the Trade Marks Registry, it would directly oppose the granting of the trade mark.

In agreeing its action, the Council emphasised that its sole motive was the public interest. Although it might share information with others who opposed the trade mark, the Society had no interest in protecting existing products against competition.

Council expenses

The Council agreed to await advice from the Department of Health before proceeding to consider a motion from Ashwin Tanna concerned with the reimbursement of locum fees paid by Council members while away from work on Council business.

Mr TANNA moved that: "Any Council member who is an employee of a body corporate, whether of his own body corporate or a multiple, should not be allowed to claim locum expenses. However, if an employee is not entitled to payment because of his contractual obligation for time taken off to attend Council meetings, he should be allowed to claim locum expenses with a receipt."

Mr TANNA said that he had already raised the matter of locum expenses with the Secretary and Registrar, who had sought advice from the Department of Health but had not received a reply, and with the Council's Audit Committee, which had yet to respond.

It was his understanding that a Council member who was an employee of his own pharmacy company was allowed to claim reimbursement of locum expenses as if he were an independent proprietor. But other employee pharmacists could not claim locum expenses, even if they were obliged to pay for locum cover from their own pockets. One rule should apply across the board.

Mr Tanna said all he wanted was justice from the Council. It was iniquitous and discriminating to bend the rules and to allow a Council member to claim locum expenses as an employee of his own body corporate while denying a Council member who was an employee of a body corporate that was not his own company.

Dr JOHN EVANS said that, for the sake of allowing the discussion, he would second the motion. A Council member, legitimately or not, felt aggrieved and the matter ought to be spoken about.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Byelaw on Council members' expenses and locum fees had been agreed after more than two years' discussion with the Department of Health. So far as locum expenses were concerned, the principle was that it should be a reimbursable business expense incurred personally by a Council member to ensure compliance with the Medicines Act. There was considerable debate about whether or not there was a loss to the individual and therefore an expense or whether it was in fact a double payment, which would not have been permissible. That payment should be paid to proprietor pharmacists who had a statutory responsibility. After Mr Tanna had raised his concerns with her she had written to the Department of Health for further advice, but had not yet received a reply. She did not think that the Council could unilaterally make a decision about the matter, because it taken a long time to develop the Byelaws as they were now.

Professor MICHAEL SCHOFIELD said that he had chaired the Audit Committee, which had taken Mr Tanna's points seriously but felt it was inappropriate to continue discussion without knowing what response had been made to the Secretary and Registrar. Although the matter was not being dealt with as quickly as Mr Tanna would like, Professor Schofield felt that the Council should await the Department's response.

On the proposal of the PRESIDENT, the Council agreed to put the motion to one side until advice had been received from the Department.

Museum decision

A motion expressing concern about aspects of the Council's decision to cut back on the activities of the Society's museum was withdrawn in the light of debate and the Council's adoption of a detailed plan for the future of the museum.

PAT HOARE moved: "That the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (i) should have been advised by the Secretary and Registrar of any implications regarding the Byelaws before reaching a budgetary decision to relinquish museum status in favour of maintaining a collection; (ii) should have been presented with a fully costed proposal for the maintenance of a collection before reaching their decision; (iii) requests the Officers to respond appropriately to the members' letters of concern published in The Pharmaceutical Journal; and (iv) seeks to establish when, and whether, the Officers will pursue a change in Byelaw XXVI."

Mrs HOARE said that the decision made at the Council's October meeting (PJ, 20 October, p579) was made purely on a financial basis. The Society's members deserved to know how the decision was reached if only because of the letters of protest published in The Journal. Certain decisions should never be made on budgetary grounds alone, especially as the true cost of the implications was never as simple as the figures on a balance sheet. The Officers had an important duty to advise the Council of the implications of any decision it was asked to make. The Council had been given no information on the significance or ramifications of the decision.

ASHWIN TANNA seconded the motion.

The PRESIDENT said that the matter had been dealt with entirely in accordance with the corporate governance arrangements agreed by the Council in June. As Mrs Hoare had said, it had been a budgetary decision. But before the decision was taken it had been emphasised that it could have implications, including staff implications. Following the decision, the President had met the museum curator (Caroline Reed) and the Director of Public Affairs (Beverley Parkin) to discuss the implications. The curator had been asked to prepare the options that the Council was now being asked to consider.

On the motion of Professor MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, the Council agreed to defer consideration of the motion until after considering the agenda item on the options for the future of the museum.

After the Council had adopted its plan for the future of the museum (PJ, 15 December, p870), the PRESIDENT asked Mrs Hoare whether she wished to pursue her motion.

Mrs HOARE said that she still believed that the Council should have been advised of any implications regarding the Byelaws before reaching their budgetary decision.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that it had not been possible to advise on the Byelaws before consideration of the possible options for the museum's future. The option the Council had now selected did not need a Byelaw amendment.

Mrs HOARE said that matters of principle were at stake as to the level of information given to the Council. She would withdraw her motion on the understanding that the situation would not be repeated. She hoped that the opportunity would be taken to address members' letters of concern.

The PRESIDENT thanked Mrs Hoare. He was sure that her point was well understood by all Council members.

Council transcript

The Council rejected a request from Pat Hoare that Council members should be able to request copies, in part or in full, of transcripts, of Council meetings.

Moving a motion to that effect, Mrs HOARE said that a copy of the relevant part of the transcript of the October meeting would have been extremely helpful to her in preparing for the debate on her motion about the Society's museum.

Dr GORDON APPELBE seconded the motion.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR pointed out that the transcript of the Council meeting was not a verbatim report. A verbatim report was not possible because sometimes audibility in the chamber was not good and because, as the proceedings have become less formal, it has become more difficult for the shorthand writer to hear all contributions to the discussion clearly. The report was produced as a tool in preparing the meeting report and the minutes. Access to the transcript was available to Council members for reference in the office. Before a decision was taken to allow copies to be available elsewhere, great care and thought had to be taken about the implications.

SULTAN DAJANI supported the motion. Not everybody could have access to the office, especially if they had much to do outside the building. If he had any anxiety it was about confidentiality. But Council members could sign a confidentiality agreement and send the papers back once they had finished with them. He accepted that the transcript might not be fully comprehensive, but it could assist Council members in being more informed.

LINDA STONE felt that the important aspect was access to information when it was required. That was clearly available. The real issue was about the document going outside of the building or being copied. The transcript was not designed for that purpose.

Summing up, Mrs HOARE said that Council members had signed an undertaking, a code of conduct, and there should not be a lack of trust in those who wished to obtain a particular portion of the transcript. Physical presence in the building was not always possible.

The PRESIDENT said that he was not putting any value judgement on the point, but four members of Council had not signed the code of conduct. That had to be borne in mind. Mrs Hoare's proposition was a perfectly reasonable one, but one had to have in mind all the implications.

The Council then took a vote on the motion, which was lost.

NHS Reform

The Council agreed that at a subsequent meeting it should hold a workshop session to discuss the NHS Reform and Health Professions Bill and its implications.

Council members heard that consultation on the Bill had progressed rapidly and the Officers had found it necessary to take certain actions ahead of the Council meeting. The Society had had significant discussions with the other health care regulators and a joint statement about the Bill had been published. The discussions were largely to do with the powers of the United Kingdom Council of Health regulators. Other aspects of the Bill, particularly strategic health authorities, would be pursued.

The Society had published its briefing to MPs. it had had only six days to produce the briefing between publication of the Bill and the Second Reading. A Select Committee been set up, and the Society would be continuing to press for the profession's interests in the Bill. The President and the Secretary and Registrar would be meeting the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, Hazel Blears, in the next week and they would be discussing that with her.

After discussion, the Council agreed to hold an informal workshop session at which members could discuss the Bill, express their concerns and views, and consider how the Society could influence the Bill's progress.

Direct-to-consumer advertising

The Council agreed a policy statement expressing reservations about the value of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescribed medicines.

The statement reads: "The demand for information about prescribed medicines from patients and the public is likely to increase, but DTCA is unlikely to be the best way of providing it because the aim of advertising is to persuade, not to give balanced information about benefits and risks. DTCA, moreover, carries a significant risk of exposing more patients to the adverse effects of new drugs. If DTCA is successful, it may well adversely affect doctor–patient relationships, distort public health priorities and disrupt the cost controls operated by the NHS. The Society therefore supports increased provision of balanced information to the public, while taking into account the above points."

The Council made its decision after considering a background paper prepared by a consultant, Colin Meek. The paper is available through the policy section of Society's website (www.rpsgb.org.uk).

Fellowship of the Society

The Council agreed that the Society should seek approval from the Privy Council for two alterations to the Society's Byelaws concerning the designation of members as fellows of the Society. The amendments were the suggestion of the panel of fellows.

The first amendment would reduce from 20 years to 12 years the minimum standing as a pharmacist required before the panel of fellows could designate a member as a fellow.

The second amendment would allow fellowship to be conferred on members who have made outstanding original contributions to the advance of pharmaceutical care. The current Byelaw refers only to outstanding original contributions to the advancement of pharmaceutical knowledge or the attainment of distinction in the science, practice, profession or history of pharmacy.

The Council also accepted in principal a proposal that members should be allowed to nominate themselves for fellowship under certain strict criteria. The panel of fellows was asked to bring a full proposal to the Council in due course.

Infringements Committee

The Council agreed that the Infringements Committee would in future meet monthly and would have power to order a prosecution or to refer complaints of misconduct direct to the Statutory Committee under delegated authority from the Council. The committee would refer a case to the Council only when it felt unable to make a decision itself.

At present, decisions to prosecute or to refer to the Statutory Committee are made only by the Council. The purpose of the change is to achieve a more rapid decision-making process.

The Council also approved a change in the procedure for handling minor infringements that are currently dealt with by warning letters from the Professional Standards Directorate without referral to the Infringements Committee. The Council was concerned that the screening process was carried out by persons who, unlike Infringements Committee members, knew the identify of the alleged offender. To reduce the risk of accusations of bias, the Council agreed that in future a brief, anonymised description of each offence would be referred to the committee, which would consider whether a warning letter was appropriate or whether to request some other action.

The Council noted that the new arrangements were interim ones pending the outcome of discussions with the Department of Health on long-term proposals for reforming the profession's disciplinary procedures.

Infringements

Failure to query an apparent overdose The Council agreed to refer to the Statutory Committee the case of a pharmacist who had failed to query an apparent overdose on a prescription for bisoprolol and had subsequently dispensed a further supply labelled with the same dose, despite having been informed that the high dose had led to the patient's admission to hospital.

The Infringements Committee heard that on 28 August the patient's wife had presented the pharmacist with a prescription for 224 bisoprolol tablets 10mg at a dose of eight daily. Although the normal maximum dose is 20mg a day, the pharmacist did not query the dose. He dispensed five boxes of 28 tablets, labelled "Take EIGHT daily" and explained that three boxes were to follow.

After taking an 80mg dose that night, the patient was admitted to hospital. On the next day the hospital pharmacist dealing with the case telephoned to advise the community pharmacist of the dosage problem. However, when the patient's wife returned to the pharmacy on the same day, the pharmacist, after apologising for what had happened, handed her the outstanding three packs of tablets, again labelled "Take EIGHT daily".

On the next day, the pharmacist was suspended by his employer pending an investigation into the incident. (The pharmacist had previously received a warning from the company after giving a patient from the same medical practice a leaflet claiming that Premarin, which she had been prescribed, was produced by cruel means.)

When interviewed by one of the Society's inspectors, the pharmacist had said that he had not queried the dose because he knew the treatment had originated from a hospital consultant. He felt that the high dose was possible because he had seen a reference to such a dose on an American website.

As well as recommending referral of the pharmacist to the Statutory Committee, the committee recommended that, in the developing climate of clinical governance, the Society should express concern to the relevant authorities about the GP's prescribing. The committee also recommended that the Society should caution pharmacists about the use of overseas reference sources that may use different or unfamiliar terms. The Council accepted both recommendations.

Hoarded medicines and prescription forms The Council agreed to make a complaint to the Statutory Committee about an employee pharmacist at whose home the police had found a large quantity of waste medicines, including Controlled Drugs, as well as a number of National Health Service prescriptions that had been dispensed without having been signed by the prescriber, and many prescription forms that should have been submitted for pricing.

The Infringements Committee heard that the pharmacist had worked for about four years as manager of a pharmacy owned by a company. During a police investigation, 17 bags of medicines had been removed from the garage at the pharmacist's home. The pharmacist had said that the medicines had been returned by patients and nursing homes and his intention was to destroy them at home. Among the medicines was a container of a Controlled Drug, Palfium.

Within the pharmacist's house, the police found three containers of temazepam that had been prescribed for nursing home patients. Checks of nursing home records confirmed that the temazepam had been returned to the pharmacist for destruction, but each container now held fewer tablets than was stated in the home's records.

The police also found numerous NHS prescription forms within the house, including 36 unsigned forms that the pharmacist said were to be returned to prescribers for signature. The pharmacist admitted having dispensed prescription only medicines and a Controlled Drug against these unsigned prescriptions. There were also prescriptions dating back over several months that should have been submitted for pricing and other prescriptions dating back over more than two years that had been returned from the prescription pricing bureau for clarification.

Fraudulent NHS payment claims The Council agreed to refer to the Statutory Committee the case of a pharmacist who had made fraudulent claims for payment against dispensed National Health Service prescriptions by supplying large pack sizes but claiming for the supply of multiple small packs.

The Infringements Committee heard that the case arose from an investigation by the NHS Counter Fraud Operational Service, which had compared the quantities claimed by the pharmacist with his purchases from wholesalers. Although the individual amounts were small, the number of false claims was such that the pharmacist had acquired a considerable sum of money through the fraud.

The pharmacist had been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, four specimen charges of obtaining money by deception and 10 other charges were taken into consideration. The pharmacist was found guilty and sentenced to 100 hours of community service. The total value of the 14 charges was £51.05 but, after further investigation by the SFOS, the pharmacist agreed to repay a total of £20,000 to the health authority.

Although the convictions meant that the case would automatically be referred to the Statutory Committee, the Council agreed to make an additional allegation of misconduct, on the ground that the pharmacist had knowingly allowed a system to exist that enabled erroneous claims to be made. It was alleged that the pharmacist's conduct brought the profession into disrepute and abused the trust placed on pharmacists by the NHS.

Sale of co-proxamol The Council agreed to make a complaint to the Statutory Committee about two pharmacists who had allegedly sold co-proxamol tablets without the authority of a prescription from the same pharmacy. A number of other complaints would be made about the pharmacist who was registered as owner of the business.

The Infringements Committee heard that the case had arisen from an allegation that co-proxamol and Rohypnol could be purchased from the pharmacy without prescription. One of the Society's inspectors had visited the pharmacy three times during October and on each occasion had been able to buy Distalgesic (co-proxamol) tablets. He had purchased 200 from the owner on the first visit, 200 from the locum on the second and 100 from the owner on the third.

The committee was told that a subsequent investigation by inspectors had revealed discrepancies between the quantities of co-proxamol and Rohypnol purchased by the pharmacy and the amounts that could be accounted for by supply on prescription. The investigation also found evidence of the dispensing of prescriptions against invalid prescriptions, a failure to comply with the safe custody requirements for Rohypnol, and a failure to enter supplies of prescription only medicines in a register. In addition, the inspectors also found some unlicensed medicines, the possession of which could amount to misconduct.

It was further alleged that at some time the pharmacist had transferred the ownership of the business to a company without the Society having been informed. If a change of ownership was not notified within 28 days, registration became void and all activities that required registration were rendered unlawful. The registration section was pursuing the registration matter.

Attendance Those present at the meeting, which was held on 4 and 5 December 2001 at 1 Lambeth High Street, London SE1, were the President (Marshall Davies), the Vice-President (Dr Gillian Hawksworth), the Treasurer (David Allen), Dr Gordon Appelbe, Hassan Argomandkhah, Andrew Burr, Peter Curphey, Sultan Dajani, Wally Dove, Digby Emson, Dr Phillida Entwistle, Dr John Evans, Alison Ewing, Christine Glover, Dr Nicola Gray, Sally Greensmith, Patricia Hoare, Alan Nathan, Hemant Patel, Kirit Patel, Professor Michael Schofield, Linda Stone, Ashwin Tanna and the Secretary and Registrar (Ann Lewis). Also present were the chairman of the Society's Scottish Executive (Alison Strath) and the chairman of the Welsh Executive (Andrea Robinson).

An apology for absence was received from Helen Remington.

Guests Present by invitation were David Forbes (Scottish Executive), Ramila Mistry (Hounslow branch), Gerard Scott (Isle of Wight branch), Pauline Sweetman (South West region), Chimanbhai Tailor (Bolton branch), Glyn Trueman (Northumbrian branch) and Mike Williams (Solihull branch).

Back to Top