The branch says: The Royal Pharmaceutical Society was established to protect the public, and to establish standards for those who practise as pharmacists so that the public can have confidence in the profession, knowing that practitioners are suitably trained and can provide a safe service meeting agreed standards.

Pharmacy, derived from the word pharmakos (poison), has changed greatly since the founding of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society but with increasingly potent medicines, protection of the public is still a primary role of the pharmacist. We describe ourselves as "experts on medicines", but with between 10 and 40 per cent of hospital admissions and readmissions due to medication-related problems and only between 25 and 50 per cent of prescribed medicines taken as intended, there is much scope for improvement.

The recent reports from the Audit Commission in England and the Scottish Executive have highlighted these problem areas and presented pharmacy with the challenge of improving patients' experience with the use of medicines. The Society, through its members, must rise to these challenges and lead a pharmacist-led programme to improve the outcome of medicines usage by patients. Such an initiative, however, must be clearly evident to the general public and designed to increase the level of public expectation from pharmacists.

The Council says: Much of the work of the Society has the objective of supporting the safe and effective use of medicines. This includes work on clinical governance; standards and practice guidance; practice research and audit; and the publication of scientific and clinical reference works.

The Society will work closely with the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA), which has been established by the Government to set up a national error reporting system. The agency has started a pilot project on errors in primary care, in which pharmacy and medicines will be a major focus. The Society's ground-breaking work on concordance seeks to create partnerships in medicine taking with patients, with the objective of helping patients get the best from their medicines. This work has been recognised by the Department of Health, which is now funding a national project on partnership in medicines taking, based at the Society.

The Society will be conducting work on "A spoonful of sugar" to identify how pharmacists can maximise the impact of the recommendations in the report. We will be working closely with the Audit Commission and the NPSA to ensure that the patient safety aspects of "A spoonful of sugar" are implemented by the NHS.

2. Dudley and Stourbridge The Society should promote pharmacy as a health profession which specialises in medicines — the dispensing of prescriptions, the recommendation of medicines, the use and misuse of medicines, the interactions between them and the management of medicines. All should be overseen by the profession with the training to do this. Pharmacists are the only health professionals with four years' university training and a further year of practical training in medicines.

The branch says: Currently, too much time and effort is going into the possibilities of pharmacists' involvement in other areas of health care. This diverts attention from the core purpose of pharmacy and pharmacists which is protecting the public health by discouraging the injudicious use of medicines while encouraging their safe and effective use.

The Council says: The Society promotes the role of pharmacy as described in the motion. As well as those activities listed above for Motion 1, the Society's work on pharmacist prescribing, repeat dispensing, and the very recent support for pharmacy representation on the NHS Direct and NHS 24 guardian groups, all support the core specialisms.

The recent collaborative work that resulted in the publication of a list of medicines possibly suitable for reclassification from POM to P has helped to raise the profile of pharmacy in this context.

A response to the consultation document MLX 273, "The extended prescribing of prescription only medicines by independent nurse prescribers", highlighted the training that pharmacists receive, and how this positions them to prescribe themselves.

The Society runs regular consumer health educational campaigns and a consistent theme is the role that pharmacists play in ensuring the safe and effective use of medicines. For example, during 2001, the "Be clear about your medicines" campaign, run jointly with the Doctor Patient Partnership, Age Concern and the National Pharmaceutical Association, addressed just this issue and encouraged patients to visit their pharmacists for expert advice on medicines. The campaign generated wide-ranging media coverage and led to an Early Day Motion, signed by over 100 MPs, being submitted to Parliament.

3. Glasgow and West of Scotland The Society should establish standards for registration of technicians as a matter of urgency. These standards should reflect the requirements of employers, allow for additional specialist skills and meet the needs of the different British health care systems.

The branch says: The Council has agreed to registration of technicians; quite how is not known. Standards have been set for a new National Vocational Qualification to commence in 2002. Some of these standards do not reflect well the differences in NHS systems in Britain.

There will be four mandatory units and four more units must be chosen to reflect community or hospital practice. Thus technicians will have different levels of skills and knowledge.

Currently technicians may have one of a number of different qualifications. Some technicians with NVQs may have had no knowledge component in their course and some with National Certificates may have little or no workplace experience.

There are additional courses available at HNC level for checking technicians and aseptic dispensing, etc. The managed NHS has defined technician grades but community does not. Community pharmacists require support to undertake the many additional tasks now expected in national health plans. There is an urgent requirement for action to lay down quality standards for the various types of technician with supervised practice for a defined period of workplace supervision.

The Council says: In December 2001 the Council agreed to move towards the mandatory regulation of pharmacy support staff. Proposals are to be developed on how to progress the regulation of support staff as part of the regulatory reform of the Society as a whole. The Council committed to consultation throughout the profession on the approach being taken and also ultimately on the proposals themselves. This work will be ongoing throughout 2002.

At present, there are a number of different training courses leading to qualifications as technicians. Some of these (BTEC National Certificate in Applied Science Pharmaceutical) are purely academic (knowledge based) programmes with no requirement for practical employment-based training or competence assessment. The question is whether this is acceptable in the current climate with its focus on professionals being required to demonstrate competence.

S/NVQs are made up of knowledge-based programmes combined with the demonstration of competence against National Occupational Standards. There are questions about the quality of the underpinning knowledge-based programmes and these will be addressed as part of the regulatory modernisation process.

S/NVQ standards are intended to be applicable across the United Kingdom. Representatives from all home countries were invited to participate in working groups as part of the review of the Pharmacy Services S/NVQ Level 3 and pharmacists across the UK were consulted as part of the consultation phase.

There is also a number of older qualifications that have now been superseded and the question of overseas qualifications will also need to be addressed.

Other issues include the range of staff to be regulated, illustrated by the wide variety of job titles in use — dispensers, dispensary assistants, pharmacy assistants, assistant technical officers, medicines counter assistants etc.

4. Glasgow and West of Scotland The Society should support the principle that pharmacists should be paid for one session a week of professional development/continuing education.

The branch says: Given the many new roles expected of pharmacists and the need for pharmacists to have a social life, it is unrealistic and unsafe to expect them to give up evenings and weekends for professional development as a matter of routine. Doctors are allowed one free session (half day) a week for professional development. We should be no different. The Society should push for the speedy implementation of this change.

The Council says: Time allowances or payments for any roles or activities of pharmacists are matters between them and the person or organisation contracting for their services. Often, such allowances are arrived at by collective bargaining. The Society has no role in such activity: other bodies exist for that purpose.

Not all doctors, by any means, enjoy such allowances as are referred to in the explanatory paragraph and, where arrangements do exist, it may not present as a half-day session per week of free time for study.

5. Birmingham The Society should ensure that details of Statutory Committee decisions are published on the official Society website in a timely manner and that transcripts should be freely available to the public and profession from the website.

The branch says: The regulation of health professionals is under heavy scrutiny and the public should accept nothing less than full openness and transparency from regulatory bodies. Greater and more timely access to Statutory Committee decisions and proceedings would allow both the public and the membership to address concerns about the decisions of the Statutory Committee and increase understanding of the basis of those decisions.

The Council says: The meetings of the Statutory Committee are public meetings. The transcripts are the shorthand note writer's report of the proceedings and may not include all written evidence considered by the Statutory Committee.

Transcripts of proceedings are sent to the Society's library as soon as practicable. These are available for private study or for personal information, not for publishing in the public domain.

The current policy of the Statutory Committee is consistent with the Rules of the Supreme Court. Full transcripts are not published by other regulatory bodies on their websites.

The Society publishes information about inquiries to be held and decisions arising from those inquiries.

6. Brighton There should be provision for pharmacists to "retire" from the Register, when they no longer wish to practise, rather than being removed on ceasing to pay their retention fee.

The branch says: At present, when a pharmacist chooses to stop practising and no longer wishes to remain on the Register, it appears that the only way to do this is through non-payment of the retention fee. This results in the pharmacist being removed, which is the same penalty incurred for committing a grave misdemeanour. This is unreasonable for someone who has decided to withdraw from the profession voluntarily. An acknowledgement from the President of honourable withdrawal on receipt of a formal letter of resignation would seem to be a much fairer way of ending a career than the present uncharitable procedure.

The Council says: Although there is no statutory provision under the Pharmacy Act 1954 enabling a pharmacist to "retire" from the Register, an administrative provision already exists enabling them to do so. The registration section will "retire" a member on receipt of a written request.

In addition, the retention fee reminder letters sent to pharmacists who have not paid their fees by the specified date contain information about retiring from the Register. Pharmacists are advised to notify the Secretary and Registrar in writing if they wish to retire. This notification must be received in advance of the date for erasures for non-payment, also specified in the reminder letter. Pharmacists retiring from the Register may be restored at a later date on payment of the appropriate retention fee. In the case of those retired for longer than five years, the completion of a return to practice course is recommended.

Pharmacists not notifying the Secretary and Registrar in writing of their intention to retire are liable to have their names erased for non-payment. Restoration to the Register is possible on payment of the retention fee and restoration fee.

7. Hull The profession (still) requires that the Medicines, Ethics and Practice Guide should be written in simple and clear English with a more comprehensive index than in the current document.

The branch says: This is a repeat of last year's motion. This branch does not believe that the latest version of the guide is any easier to read or understand than previous versions. It is written in the passive tense with long sentences. The Council's explanation for this frankly turgid prose is that it is a legal document which is the basis for possible Statutory Committee activity. If this is the case, then the argument for an easily understood, yet specific document is even stronger. Writing guidance for health care professionals can be done with clarity — look here.

The Council says: A complete review of the Code of Ethics was undertaken between 1998 and 2001 and the new document adopted at the annual general meeting in 2001. The membership was consulted during the review process and a large number of comments was received, including some relating to the change in style and language. The response from the membership to the revised code has been overwhelmingly positive. No other comments have been received suggesting that the code is in any way difficult to read or to understand. Indeed, a number of correspondents have welcomed the change in style and language and commented that the revised document is much easier to read in comparison to earlier versions.

The "Medicines, ethics and practice" guide continues to undergo revision and improvement. Part 1 concerning general legal requirements is currently being rewritten and the index is continually being updated. The comments of the Hull branch will be taken on board throughout this work.

8. Brighton The Society's inspectorate should publicise its supporting role as well as a regul-atory one in order to maintain and improve the standards of pharmacy.

The branch says: The Society's inspectors have a wide experience of pharmacy practice and it would be beneficial to members, if in addition to their regulatory role, they publicised their advisory and support roles for the improvement of standards in pharmacy. This is especially important in the light of the Government's drive to improve all aspects of the National Health Service through the application of clinical governance and the Commission for Health Improvement.

The Council says: Over several years, the work of the inspectorate has developed so that, while the enforcement role is still an important part, there is much more emphasis on the role of inspectors as supporters and advisers to the profession. This started in the late 1980s with the prenotification scheme, which allows pharmacists to prepare for a visit by the inspector so that matters can be raised constructively. This also demonstrates that the inspectors' main purpose in routine visits is to inform the profession rather than "catch them out".

In more recent times, the inspectors have given talks to preregistration trainees where the same message has been given. Inspectors have shared their telephone numbers and e-mail addresses so that pharmacists can contact them for advice and there have been many occasions where pharmacists who have made errors or who need advice have sought immediate guidance from the inspectors who have largely been able to give that advice informally.

The inspectors have also been involved in some health cases, where support has been given, including providing advice on sources of assistance. In some cases, the inspector has liaised with the support networks and the pharmacist to help secure appropriate treatment.

To prepare the inspectorate for the future, inspectors' meetings have included presentations on audit and clinical governance. Inspectors give advice to pharmacists about those measures that need to be implemented on error and near-miss logging, interventions logs, dispensing standard operating procedures, training of support staff and CPD.

Because pharmacists are increasingly busy during visits, the inspectors are mindful of the intrusion, and try to minimise the interruptions. Some out-of-hours meetings have also taken place.

9. Bolton The Society require its inspectors to be actively involved in the activities of a branch local to their place of residence.

The branch says: The change of emphasis in the inspector's role, with a greater emphasis on support and advice, means that they no longer need to remain aloof from the Society's membership.

The inspector is our local direct contact with Lambeth. Involvement with a local branch opens up greater opportunities for improved two-way communication.

The Council says: Branch meetings are a useful forum for exchanging views but the workload of inspectors means that sometimes meetings cannot be attended. It would not be appropriate or practicable to place an obligation on an inspector to attend branch meetings. The head of the inspectorate and some inspectors serve as committee members in local branches but other inspectors will not have the time nor desire to take on such roles. Some inspectors have also given the membership team their details for publication in the list of speakers for branch meetings.

10. Birmingham The Society must maintain or improve its existing role of representing the membership.

The branch says: The Society is currently involved in an in-depth reappraisal of its future role. Several options are being considered and most of these propose a re-evaluation of the role of the Society in relation to its regulatory and representative roles. The purpose of this motion is to indicate to the Council that whatever the final outcome of the re-evaluation process, it must result in a solution which at the very least maintains the existing level of membership representation.

The Council says: The Society's Charter contains the objective "to maintain the honour and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy".

It is not within the remit of the Society to "represent" commercial or pecuniary interests of the profession or of a section of the profession. The Society does legitimately make representations with the aim of influencing public policy on matters within its professional and regulatory remit.

11. Moray and Banff; South Cheshire; Shropshire The decision of the Council to hold the 2003 branch representatives' meeting at the British Pharmaceutical Conference should be withdrawn and the BRM should continue to be held at Lambeth on the day after the annual general meeting.

The branch says: It is important that the present linked arrangement of BRM and AGM together continues, as it allows more distant branches to have representation at the AGM and this is important to Society democracy.

Members do not necessarily attend both meetings and, since the BRM itself is against such a move, the Council's decision is strange. Removing the linkage with the Society's annual general meeting will make the BRM less representative of and therefore less relevant to the membership. For those based a long way from Lambeth, it is an opportunity to feel involved by travelling to the headquarters.

The Council says: The Council agreed in December, as an experiment, to hold the branch representatives' meeting at the British Pharmaceutical Conference for one year, which, it was hoped, would encourage a higher level of attendance at both events. As plans for 2002 BRM were well in hand when the decision was made, the office is exploring the possibilities of bringing this forward for 2003.

Under current policy, branch representatives to the BRM will continue to have expenses met centrally.

12. South Cheshire; Bolton The decision of Council to withdraw central funding for branch and regional representatives attending the British Pharmaceutical Conference is not in the best interests of the membership and should be rescinded.

The branch says: This cost-cutting exercise of the Council will markedly reduce the number of representatives attending the BPC and significantly curtail the involvement of branches and regions in this major pharmaceutical event of the year. It is short-sighted, taken with no consultation of the membership and is a further blow to the place of branches and regions in the Council's priorities.

The Council says: The Council considered strategies from its Conference Committee to deliver the 2002 conference within the budget and proposals of a review group established to look at the future direction of the conference.

The Council agreed that the conference should continue to include scientific, professional and political elements and that the conference programme should be designed to meet the continuing professional development needs of practising pharmacists. To succeed, it was agreed that BPC needs to operate on a robust business basis, with its costs identified and separated from those of the Society, its expenditure kept within a budget, sponsorship and exhibition income increased and a programme designed to maximise attendance.

The conference continues to be heavily subsidised by the Society, both in terms of direct costs and staff time. A number of measures and cost savings have been identified in order to ensure that the conference can be managed within its allocated budget. One major cost historically borne by the conference are the costs of staff, Council members and branch and regional representatives attending. In future, the BPC will only bear the costs of staff and Council members directly involved in conference organisation or the programme. The Council also agreed that branches and regions should be encouraged to continue to send delegates to the conference but that, in future, such delegates should have their costs met from the general branch and regional grant allocations rather than from a central allocation within the conference budget. This means that branches and regions wishing to send representatives to the conference will be free to decide how many members' fees and expenses they wish to fund, subject, of course, to their financial position and their other priorities.

The conference will continue to be held in autumn each year but will take place over three days. Day programmes will be developed as integrated packages, with day tickets for members in 2002 costing £125. This represents a modest increase and is certainly not out of line with the cost of similar events.

13. Cheltenham and Gloucester The Council should realise the importance of the museum and historical collection and rescind the decision to greatly reduce the monies allocated to this activity.

The branch says: The unprecedented reaction in the letters column of The Pharmaceutical Journal to the report of the October Council meeting, regarding the reduction by two thirds in the budget for the museum, indicates the importance with which the museum is regarded by pharmacists.

The decisions made at the December Council meeting only partially remedy the situation. As a direct result of the cutbacks made by the philistines comprising the Council these days, we have lost the services of an outstanding curator who has done a magnificent job for several years, by bringing recognition to our museum from all quarters. The December statement says "revision of the museum's acquisition and disposal policy to restrict new acquisitions to contemporary medicines". This new policy is short-sighted, meaning there will be no opportunity to obtain material which adds significantly to the collection from earlier periods or other countries. It also means that the museum will be unable to accept exceptional gifts willed to it by interested persons.

The Council says: The museum's acquisitions and disposals policy has to provide an accurate description of current collecting policy in order to support our application for national registration.

With the change in focus and in public access, it is expected that the museum will be given what is known as provisional registration which for all intents and purposes will provide the same benefits as before. It will underpin the necessary safeguards for the collection, especially in terms of agreed standards and levels of collection care but will also enable the existing Byelaw to be honoured. It will also enable the museum to stay as part of the various museum networks and to qualify for grants or subsidised training.

The policy regards the Council quite rightly as the governing body in registration terms, which means it continues to be responsible for the museum's constitution (unchanged) and to make decisions about the disposal of any items.

The policy document contains a statement about the museum's current collecting policy. However it also states that "acquisitions outside the current stated policy will only be made in very exceptional circumstances and only after proper consideration by the governing body".

This would allow for the museum to accept exceptional gifts bequeathed to it. It would be up to the Council to agree to the exceptions based on advice from the museum staff.

The same clause would also cover "significant" items from earlier periods.

For many years now the museum's mandate has not sought to collect from abroad. The constitution is quite clear on this with the phrase ". . . whose collections reflect the principles and practice of British pharmacy from its earliest origins to date".

14. Hull Members require a more transparent set of accounts and accountability to monitor income and expenditure with an enhanced and more public role for the honorary auditors which should be provided to members no less than 20 days before the annual general meeting.

The branch says: In May 2001, the Hull branch proposed a motion that the Council should provide fuller and clearer annual financial accounts and also that the honorary auditors should have an expanded role in reviewing the accounts. The Council turned the motion down for a number of reasons, including that there are internal committees overseeing financial activities and making sure that everything is under control and the Council provides no less information than is the minimum required by Companies House.

The Hull branch is not convinced by this response. The Society is not a limited company, nor (yet) a quango. It is a membership organisation and ordinary members are entitled to receive a full and clear account of the way in which their money is being spent. Similarly, the honorary auditors, who represent ordinary members' interests (not those of the Council), should have enough data and sufficient time to conduct an appropriate investigation of income and expenditure against the chartered objectives of the Society.

Since last year's BRM, the Council has increased fees by an unprecedented 30 per cent. We wrote a letter expressing our concerns to all members of Council and the feedback that we have received has highlighted even more concerns. The partial release of some data in The Pharmaceutical Journal in January actually raises more questions than it answers.

We therefore wish again to propose the identical motion to last year.

The Council says: The current financial statements provide in summary format the income and expenditure of the Society as well as a summary review of the main areas of Society activity for the year. The format of the financial statements has been developed over a number of years to provide consistent and comparable data that comply with the major disclosure requirements of company reporting, which is considered best practice for the Society to adopt. A more detailed analysis of income and expenditure has been incorporated in the Society's full financial statements to enhance transparency and help with interpretation of the financial information. This is further supplemented by a commentary in the main Society annual report, and by the Treasurer's speech at the AGM.

The Society's income and expenditure is monitored by a subcommittee of the Council, the Resource Management Committee, which meets on a quarterly basis. The committee receives the proposed financial budget for future periods and departmental and directorate analysis of financial performance to date.

In addition, it is able to question the finance team on any issues arising from the data presented and makes recommendations to the Council in terms of budgetary control and compliance with financial policy.

Additionally, the Council established an Audit Committee during 2000, which is charged with, among other issues, the establishment of a sound internal audit function, monitoring both financial and non-financial internal controls. Hence, transparency and accountability are constantly monitored within the Society.

The Society operates a number of other key controls to ensure accountability. To provide additional financial detail in the public domain would compromise the Society's commercial activities and would involve additional cost to the Society. As part of the budgetary control proposed for 2002, the Society will again publish the financial statements on its website before the AGM. The date of publication is dependent upon the internal timetable for committee approval.

The honorary auditors currently approve the financial statements before the AGM. At the honorary auditors' meeting, they are able to raise any issues or concerns with the Society's external auditors, Treasurer, President, Secretary and Registrar and Director of Resources. The future of this role is currently under consideration by the Audit Committee.

15. Moray and Banff; Slough The Council should withdraw the "Rules on canvassing" applied to candidates for election to Council.

The branch says: The Moray and Banff branch believe that these "rules" constitute only a gentlemen's agreement and have no basis in law and therefore are not actionable. Certainly they represent a restriction on the freedom of expression of a candidate and make it difficult for members to ascertain the views and policies of candidates. It is believed that these "rules" conflict with the EC protocols on human rights and free expression.

The BRM in 2000 passed a joint motion from the Slough and Bristol branches asking the Council to reconsider the restrictions on canvassing in the elections for Council members. At a Council meeting in 2001, this topic was discussed and the Council rejected any change in the official position on canvassing. The Slough branch believes that it is important that the membership should be able to have as much information as possible on the candidates for election to the Council.

The Council says: Council policy is that "outright" canvassing is not appropriate in elections to membership of the governing body of a profession. However, the guidelines permit "limited" canvassing and several organisations routinely hold hustings events to which all Council election candidates are invited.

The existing policy on canvassing does not purport to have force of law: it reflects the Council's policy to try and ensure that all candidates should have an equal and fair opportunity to convey their views to the electorate.

The guidelines do not curtail the right of free speech; at most they restrict use for a finite time of specific media for the expression of views.

16. Slough The decision of Council to refer a decision on replacing the single transferable vote for the election of Council members to the committee on modernisation of Council is to be deplored.

The branch says: The past three BRMs have supported the replacement of the single transferable vote in Council elections and yet the Council, after two years of prevarication, has now deferred any decision to the committee discussing the modernisation of the Council. No direction was given to this committee that it should consider the will of the membership as indicated by three votes at consecutive BRMs, nor has any timescale for the consideration of this been given to the branch.

The Slough branch asks that the BRM should again direct the Council to enact this change.

The Council says: The Council considered the voting system for Council members' and auditors' elections at its meeting in October 2001, at which it also agreed proposals to establish the Society's modernisation steering group. The steering group is to develop options for Council reform, identify governance arrangements and consider the impact of devolution. It was therefore considered appropriate to defer any changes to the current voting system pending the outcome of the review planned under the modernisation programme.

The modernisation steering group is currently seeking views on the future remit and functions of the Society. Consideration of the future composition and responsibilities of the Council and the method of election or appointment of Council members will follow. The membership will continue to be kept informed of the steering group's work and given the opportunity to explore possible options for the future.

17. Cheltenham and Gloucester The Council should reintroduce formality within the Council chamber.

The branch says: At the October Council meeting, it was agreed that "those present will no longer be required to stand when addressing the meeting, and that they will be allowed to use forenames rather than formal titles when referring to others. They will also be permitted to remove their jackets or coats if they so wish."

According to reports, this has proved unsuccessful as contributions cannot always be heard and it is proposed that the Council should revert to its previous policy of "stand up, speak up and shut up".

The Council says: The Council approved these and a number of changes to the structure and format of its meetings with the aim of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Council's workings by making meetings smoother and more focused.