The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7214 p341-342
7 September 2002

Society summary

Pharmacists' views on how Council members might be selected and elected

An overwhelming majority of respondents wish for either all — or over 50 per cent — pharmacist members of Council to be elected (87 per cent in total). Currently, members of Council are elected under the single transferable vote system — which is perceived to be over-complicated by some pharmacists, as well as favouring weaker candidates by others. In May each year, when the election takes place, The Journal always receives a handful of letters complaining about the system, so it was not unexpected that a significant majority of respondents to the questions about the voting system wished to revert to using the so-called "first past the post" system (X system). There were 60.5 per cent in favour of the X system compared with 32.5 per cent who wished to retain the STV system.

The other question that elicited a strong favourable response was the idea of joining forces with the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, in response to the question: "Regulation of the health professions is a power reserved to Westminster for the whole of the United Kingdom. The RPSGB should consider uniting with the Society in Northern Ireland to reflect this." Altogether 65 per cent either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while 23 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In the response to the others questions the majorities were not so large. Although 55 per cent of respondents were keen to see places on the Council reserved for pharmacists from specific fields of practice (with 36.5 per cent saying no), 49 per cent of respondents wished places to be reserved for pharmacists in England, Scotland and Wales (with 42 per cent saying no). Interestingly, there were more respondents wishing to see more hospital pharmacists, academics and industrial pharmacists represented on Council than community pharmacists (even though these three represent a much smaller percentage of the profession), which may suggest that these groups believe they are not fully represented at the moment.

Because the vast majority of respondents wanted all pharmacists to be elected and not appointed, relatively few respondents had any ideas to offer about what appointment process should be adopted. Those respondents who did reply to the question about how pharmacists should be appointed largely interpreted it to mean how the voting system could be refined.

There was strong support for regional representation, based on geographical constituencies. Names for election should be put forward by the branches, for example, and local elections should take place before central elections, one respondent suggested. Another respondent suggested that as the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists has national and regional elections, it is a useful model for the Society to investigate.

There should be also be constituencies for the various fields of practice. There was wide support for the idea that candidates for those places should practise in the areas and this should take up most of their professional time. A number of respondents suggested that pharmacists should be nominated from the relevant special interest groups of the Society, one going as far as to suggest that the chairmen (or women) of the groups should be members of Council.

Many respondents suggested that the numbers of pharmacists from each field of practice and country should be in proportion to the number of that sector on the register (with a place each for an industrial pharmacist and an academic).

For those respondents who were prepared to consider the appointment of some Council members, there was a suggestion that individuals should be able to apply for specific reserved places — as anyone has to apply for a job. Alternatively, appointments could be made on the recommendation of special interest groups. Another respondent suggested the various representative groups in pharmacy should be asked to make three nominations and the Council would then choose one.

Another respondent suggested that one seat only should be guaranteed for every field of practice and the rest should be elected. However, another respondent took a more robust view and pointed out that if pharmacists were to be appointed for all the home countries as well as different fields of practice, there would be little room for anyone else.

One radical suggestion was that voting should be compulsory. Another proposal was that each candidate should attract at least 40 per cent of the membership.