The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7203 p883
22 June 2002

Your views sought on getting the right balance on the Council

A discussion paper issued by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society this week asks for views on how to achieve the right balance on the Society's Council in the light of its decision last month that the Society should retain both its regulatory and professional roles within a reformed structure firmly based on the public interest (PJ, May 25, p739).

Published as a four-page centre pull-out section with this issue of The Journal (PDF*, 165K), the paper is the second in a series prepared by the Society's Modernisation Steering Group to promote discussion and comment from pharmacists and others with an interest in the governance of the Society. The first paper (PDF*, 165K), which was distributed last week (PJ, 15 June, p855), sought views on the Council's future responsibilities and composition, including the proportions of professional and lay members. This week's paper looks at whether the Council's make-up should reflect devolution and/or fields of practice and whether at least some pharmacist members of the Council should be appointed. It also considers the Council election voting system.

Comments on the second paper are sought by 25 July. The Journal is to distribute a questionnaire with next week's issue to obtain a snapshot response to questions raised in both papers.

Background

The paper begins by looking at the response to a preliminary consultation two years ago which found that most respondents favoured reserved places on the Council for Scotland and Wales and for sectors of practice, and favoured a return to the pre-1976 "X" system of voting in Council elections.

The paper then examines the current situation and goes on to consider possible systems of appointment and election of Council members. It says that, whatever system is used, Council members because of their collective responsibilities could not be mandated representatives of particular interests.

After looking at the situation in other health regulatory bodies, the paper asks whether all pharmacist members of the Council should continue to be elected or whether should some be appointed and, if so, who should have the right to appoint.

Devolution

In the next section the paper looks at the impact of devolution and how it should be reflected. It notes that all health professions except pharmacy have regulatory bodies with a remit across the United Kingdom, whereas the Society operates only across Great Britain. It does not, however, consider the possibility of a merger with the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland to create a UK-wide pharmacy body.

The paper notes that the General Dental Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Medical Council and the General Optical Council all have places for professional members from each home country — one from Wales, one from Northern Ireland, either one or two from Scotland and varying numbers from England. A geographical breakdown of the Society's membership suggests that a Council with pharmacist membership reduced to 16 or fewer would need to include one pharmacist from Scotland and one from Wales.

The paper goes on to consider how such reserved places might be filled. It says that if Scotland and Wales were to form constituencies to elect pharmacists to the Council, it could be argued that England, comprising 84 per cent of members resident in Britain, was too large to form one constituency. For comparison, the GDC, NMC and GOC intend to treats England as a single constituency for the election of professional members, but the GMC plans to divide England into five constituencies. The paper asks whether, if Scotland and Wales were to form constituencies to elect pharmacists to the Council, England should form one constituency or be divided.

Sectoral representation

The next section considers whether Council places should be reserved for pharmacists in particular fields of practice, so as to achieve a more balanced membership and to help inform the Council's decisions. It explains that the issue is much more complex than reserving place for England, Scotland and Wales. After discussing various options and their pros and cons, the paper points out that the new structures for the GMC, GOC and GDC do not include any sectoral representation among the elected professional members, other than to ensure that the GOC's membership includes both optometrists and dispensing opticians. Similarly, the NMC and the Health Profeessions Council have no sectoral representation other than to ensure that their councils include members from each of the professions regulated by that council. The GMC and the GOC both include appointed professional members, who could bring in expertise not provided through the electoral system.

The paper asks for views on whether the Council should include reserved places for specific fields of practice and, if so, which fields of practice and how should this be achieved.

Method of election

In a section on the method of election of pharmacist members of Council, the paper says that the general experience of regulatory bodies for health professionals is that the level of participation in council elections is declining. Typically it is below 30 per cent of the electorate, and across a wider group of professional or learned bodies levels of participation of 10–20 per cent are seen.

The paper notes that strong views have been expressed within pharmacy in favour of returning to an "X" system of voting, but points out that the STV system is widely used in professional bodies, that it is broadly seen as fair and that there is no evidence that changing the system would increase participation in the election.

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.