The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7218 p507-508
5 October 2002

Society summary

Pharmacists' views on how long Council members should remain in office

Over 2,000 pharmacists replied to our questionnaire about who should be eligible to serve on the Council and for how long. In answer to the first question, "Should the criteria for candidates eligible for election to Council be changed?", 80.7 per cent agreed that there should be a change and candidates should have their registered address in Great Britain. Just over 15 per cent were happy with the status quo, and less than 3 per cent of respondents put forward different suggestions. One pharmacist suggested that Council candidates must be registered and working in Great Britain, and another refined the definition further and said that candidates should be registered and resident. "Living abroad is not acceptable."

A majority of pharmacists said there should be no restrictions for pharmacists who are board members of other British pharmacy bodies on their eligibility to serve on the Council. Altogether 61.2 per cent said there should be no restrictions, nearly three times as many than said board members of other bodies should be debarred from serving (23.8 per cent), with 13.5 per cent saying there should be some restrictions.

The few respondents who specified what the restrictions should be suggested that if they had a conflict of interest they should not be able to vote, and their activities should be strictly monitored. A number of respondents suggested that they should only be able to be on the board of one other pharmacy body. And as one pharmacist put it: "There should be restrictions in which their 'own' interests may conflict with those of the Council, for example, the National Pharmaceutical Association or the Young Pharmacists Group." Another said they should declare their interests and have no say in a debate if a conflict arises. Yet another suggestion was that members of boards of multiples should be excluded.

An overwhelming majority of respondents (93.4 per cent) agreed that candidates be required to declare any adverse fitness to practise decisions, with only 3.3 per cent disagreeing and 1.4 per cent suggesting other declarations needed to be made.

In answer to the question, "Should there be any requirement for candidates to be actively working within the profession?", there was a large majority in favour (70.6 per cent) with the balance rejecting the suggestion. Opinion differed in the comments on what constituted working in pharmacy. A handful of respondents wanted to exclude academics and members working in industry, but these voices were few and far between.

"Any work requiring pharmaceutical knowledge and expertise," summed up the response from many. There was a wide range of suggestions on how much time candidates should have to spend in pharmacy practice. The minimum seemed to be seven days per annum, but most respondents proposed a minimum of between one day per week and 50 per cent of their time.

Just over half the respondents (55 per cent) said there should no change to the current requirement that five nominators be from a candidate's branch. One respondent wrote in crisp terms: "If folk can't find the time to get five members to sign from the local branch how will they find the time to serve on Council?" Over a third, however, indicated that the requirement should be removed with a further 7.6 per cent putting forward alternative suggestions. "There should be 10 nominators of which only five should come from the local branch." A few pharmacists pointed out that since their local branch was defunct nominations should come from neighbouring branches. "Anyone standing must be able to show some evidence of support", was a general theme, with one pharmacist suggesting that if nominators' names were published, it would give other members some idea of the range of support a given candidate had.

In answer to the question, "Should candidates be required to declare that they are eligible to serve as a charity trustee?", about two-thirds said "yes" (64.2 per cent); just over a quarter said "no" (26.8 per cent) with a handful putting forward alternative suggestions.

Just over half of respondents want to see a relaxation in the current restrictions on canvassing for candidates in Council elections. Just under 40 per cent wanted the restrictions to stay, and 55 per cent wanted to see them go. In the words of one respondent: "Restrictions are ridiculous." Few respondents put forward suggestions on what would be allowable but one suggested that "personal canvassing was acceptable, but no paid advertising", and yet another suggested "there should be restrictions on canvassing budgets". One suggestion was that it would "be very useful if we had one [live] hustings session where all candidates would be required to answer the same questions".

Term of office

The most popular term of office for Council members would be three years with 57 per cent in favour of that period. Roughly equal numbers of respondents wanted it reduced to two years (16.8 per cent) or increased to four years (18 per cent) with only 5.3 per cent in favour of five-year terms.

There was not such a clear response to the question about the frequency of elections for Council members in the future. Roughly a third wished to have them every year (35.2 per cent), just under 30 per cent wanted them every two years, and about a quarter wanted them every three years (25.3 per cent). Less than 10 per cent were interested in elections every four years or more.

Opinion was also divided over whether there should be a limit on the number of consecutive years that Council members can serve. A third said there should be no limit (32.3 per cent) and a similar proportion said there should be a limit of between six and eight years. However, together with the proportion who wanted a limit of between three and five years (16.9 per cent), those who wished to see a limit of nine to 11 years (14 per cent) and a further 2.5 per cent suggesting a maximum of 12 to 14 years, the consensus was clear. A limit of some description was desirable.

One pharmacist in favour of a fixed limit on the number of years served said: "The members, after being elected, seem to stay on [the Council] for years, not leaving room for new faces and ideas to come forward."

Respondents also believed that there should be an upper age limit. Only a quarter thought there should be no age limit. A quarter thought that 70 was a suitable upper limit, and a further 31.7 per cent picked 65 as the upper limit. Nearly 10 per cent suggested 60 as the maximum age, while 6.7 per cent were happy with Council members being up to the age of 75. There were a few comments about eligibility at the lower end of the age spectrum. A few respondents said that pharmacists should have worked for five years before standing for Council.

Most respondents marked more than one option for reasons for members to be removed from Council, eg, health (45.4 per cent), an unfavourable fitness to practise decision (70.8 per cent), and failing to turn up for meetings, not performing satisfactorily or behaving badly (83.2 per cent). Five per cent were happy with the status quo. However a word of warning came from one respondent: "We should be careful about removing members from office. There is a danger that a member could be 'hounded out' or at least have the ammunition to so claim. We should also consider whether adverse decisions on fitness to practise should be 'spent' after an agreed time interval for electoral purposes."