A total of 493 respondents would like the Council to be only made up of pharmacists (28 per cent) — broadly reflecting the proposal put forward by the Young Pharmacists Group. Typical responses in favour of the YPG proposal were: "Regulatory machinery should be set up within the Society — it should have a separate board with almost half lay membership." And: "I strongly believe the Society should maintain its 'membership' role and should administer on behalf of the Government a reformed regulatory body, as indeed it does at the moment." Another respondent said: "Devolve regulatory function to a new committee as described by the Young Pharmacists Group." Yet another said: "I agree with the Young Pharmacists Group's proposal, ie, changing the structure of the Society rather than the Council." Another said: "One organisation cannot be expected to act in the members' best interests and to police those members unless a specific subdivision of responsibilities is made." And from one retired respondent: "Allow the Young Pharmacists Group to run the Society; it is their future."

This group of pharmacists also tended to be more disillusioned with the Society and Council in general: "The Council of the Society should not be concerned with commercial matters. The present arrangements mean that the Society's focus is on retail pharmacy issues to far too great an extent. Pharmacy is a broad-based profession and the aim should be to broaden its base and gain strength intellectually through diversity." And another pharmacist said: "Nothing I can write here, any of the answers I've given, no letters I could write, no opinions I give any way at all will make one jot of difference to what the Society does." "If Government requires a regulatory body let them set it up at a minimal cost to the membership. I am quite happy with external regulation if it is necessary but the [Modernisation Steering Group] seems to have made up its mind already. If we go down the route they have decided, then the Society is of no practical use to the membership."

What about the views of pharmacists who either accept the status quo or accept greater lay input? At the moment, there are three lay members on the Council giving a pharmacy element of 87.5 per cent. Doubling that to six lay members would reduce the pharmacy element to 75 per cent. Looking at Figure 2, the Society's Modernisation Steering Group should be able to take some comfort from the fact that a total of 53 per cent of respondents would accept at least a doubling of the lay input on the Council.

In addition, 43 per cent of pharmacists would accept the proportions of professional and lay members seen in other regulatory bodies (60 per cent professional representation or less). A typical response in favour of 60 per cent of pharmacists is: "The system should allow for the best people to come through, but also have professionals to help with the running of Council." Another said: "It should be emphasised that it is essential to retain the unique regulatory/professional role of the Council in order to present the levels of transparency, accountability and governance standards that are seen to be in the public interest." A different view was: "The Council needs to radically change its vision to become more proactive, and have Council members who reflect and understand the 'new NHS' and can help pharmacists from all sections to deliver on that agenda." Another respondent said: "The future of the profession depends on the credibility and hence on the quality of the Council. Neither Council nor the Society will have credibility unless lay representation approaches 50 per cent and pharmacist members are clearly and consistently seen to act in the public interest — anything less will be seen as a fudge."

On a slightly different tack, a further respondent said: "If the Council continues to be predominantly made up of pharmacist businessmen/women, the profession will continue to be sees as a profession run by shopkeepers, rather than as a true health care profession."

Over 1,000 respondents (1,077; 61 per cent) accept that the Council should have between 20 and 30 members (as at the moment). However, 536 pharmacists (30.5 per cent) would like to see a much smaller Council at work (under 20) although far fewer (71; 4.0 per cent) wanted to see the Council increase to over 30 members.

In response to the statement: "The Council's constitution should allow for the inclusion of pharmacy technicians within its non-pharmacists membership", respondents were in favour. Nearly 1,000 respondents (972; 56 per cent) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement and 770 (44 per cent) disagreed or strongly disagreed.

An overwhelming majority of respondents would welcome the chief pharmaceutical officers of the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales at Council meetings: 335 (19 per cent) would wish them to be there as observers; 1,007 (57 per cent) would be happy for them to debate, provided they did not vote; 216 (12.5 per cent) would accept them as full voting members; and only 176 (10 per cent) did not want them to be there at all (Figure 3).

A more radical proposal came from one respondent: "We should be looking to an EU [European Union] Pharmaceutical Council — then perhaps pharmacists would enjoy the status their colleagues in Europe seem to have."

The vast majority of respondents worked in the community (55 per cent); 15.5 per cent came from the hospital sector and 6 per cent worked in primary care, with 3 per cent from academia, 6 per cent in industry and a further 16 per cent specifying "Other".