The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7251 p773-775
31 May 2003

Society summary

Branch representatives' meeting

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's 2003 branch representatives' meeting took place in London on 15 May, attended by representatives of 63 branches and the British Pharmaceutical Students Association. Reports of the debate on the 11 motions appear below

Meeting condemns branch funding cuts

The meeting carried two motions opposing the Society's recent cuts in branch funding and the changes in the way funds are allocated. One motion also called for the decisions to be reconsidered and the other, after amendment, asked for consultation with the branches before any future changes.

ZAFAR KHAN (West Metropolitan) moved: "that this meeting deplores the fact that the branch funding has been reduced and the means of allocating funds changed without consultation or notice." He said that the branches were first informed of the changes in October 2002 and they took place in January 2003. His branch had already planned its programme for the first half of 2003 on the basis of the 2002 grant. How could branches budget when they did not know how much money they would have until half-way through the year?

LESLEY CANNON (West Metropolitan), seconding the motion, said that there was stated to be £250,000 floating about in branch accounts. With 130 branches, that averaged about £2,000. In west London the cost of mailing, room hire and catering for one meeting was nearly £1,000. It was increasingly difficult to attract sponsorship.

KATY SMITH (Ipswich and Suffolk), opposing the motion, objected to the words "have been changed without consultation or notice". Branch funding had been discussed at both the 2001 and 2002 branch secretaries' meetings. As a branch secretary, she believed she had been consulted and notified.

ROGER PHILLIPS (Birmingham) said that his branch, like West Metropolitan, arranged its programme in the summer for the following year. It needed money to book rooms well in advance to make sure they were available. Secondly, branches were allowed to carry over £1,000 and apply for more money if necessary. But in Birmingham, where it cost about £700 to put on a meeting, £1,000 went nowhere. It was no use receiving the grant in July, when the branch had already had to cancel meetings. Similarly, applications for extra money were made in April. But his branch normally arranged at least seven meetings in the year, five of them in the first half. This year, it had a carry-over of more than £1,000 and so could not run its programme.

JOEL HIRST (Bristol) said that his branch was enraged. It believed strongly that the funding system was curtailing its ability to deliver the programme it wanted to deliver. With over 450 members, a contingency of £1,000 was woefully inadequate for planning a full programme. Branches needed to be able to call on a reserve to deliver a well-planned programme.

Dr HOWARD McNULTY (Glasgow) said that pharmacy needed a strong branch structure if it was to influence people locally, but the funding cut gave a message that the branches were not needed.

Dr ANGELA ALEXANDER (Slough) proposed an amendment, duly seconded, to make the motion read: "that we deplore the reduction in branch funding and propose that future changes should only be made after a period of consultation with the branches."

Answering a question, the Society's Director of Public Affairs, BEVERLEY PARKIN, said that last year the global sum for branch funding had been reduced by £25,000. That amount had now been reinstated to allow Charter meetings. Effectively, the global sum had not changed.

THE PRESIDENT then put the amendment to the meeting, and it was carried. The amended motion was then carried.

On behalf of the Shropshire and Northumbrian branches, JOHN GENTLE (Shropshire) moved: "That the recent decisions to reduce branch funding and to change the way in which branch grants are allocated should be condemned and reconsidered." He asked why branch grants had been cut by £25,000 when the Society had a turnover of almost £50m and a profit of almost £2.2m. To the Society, £25,000 was a drop in the ocean, but to branches like his, with its funding cut by over 30 per cent, it was significant. If the main reason was to redistribute money from branches that were not using to it, why take money from every branch? His branch had nine meetings a year, costing nearly £3,000, and if on 31 December it had £2,000 in its account that money was already allocated. It was not doing nothing. Ms Parkin had referred to £25,000 being put back into branch funding. but it had been put back for a centralised purpose. The branches should decide what to spend their money on.

WASIM BAQIR (Northumbrian), seconding the motion, said that the funding system was unfair and should be reviewed.

ROGER MILLS (Slough) said that it was not unreasonable for the Society to ask the branches to live within a reduced budget. However, the Council's background notes (PJ, 12 April, p527) were particularly disingenuous. They implied that the workshop section of the 2002 branch secretaries' meeting had agreed the new method. It had done no such thing, absolutely not.

It was not the funding reduction that was so depressing, but the fact that active branches like his, with a sound financial policy, were being penalised. It was only because it had built up a financial reserve that his branch could offer nine meetings a year. Yet because it had prudently built up a bank deposit of more than £1,000, it was not allowed to apply for any of the extra £59,000.

BILL BROOKES (South Cheshire) said that the Council's comments on the motion said that the main impetus for the new system was a wish to address "the situation whereby some branches feel deprived of adequate funding for their programmes while others struggle to use up their allocation and accrue considerable unspent bank balances". Neither of those applied to his branch, yet it was still penalised by the new system, because it worked hard to attract sponsorship. As a result of the new system, his branch was unable to bid for extra funds this year.

Ms Parkin had said that money cut from the branch budget had now been put back. But the branches could only have that money to use as the Council directed. That smacked of centralised control-freakery.

Ms SMITH, opposing the motion, said that the funding system had only been in place for five months. It should be left it a bit longer before asking for another change.

MAURICE HICKEY (Moray and Banff) said that his branch was the smallest in the country. Each year it had nine meetings and a social event. Over half the members had attended at least one meeting in the past year and attendance at meetings was regularly 30 per cent of the membership. Why was his branch being penalised for being good at its job? The branch also objected to the fact that the additional money Ms Parkin had referred to was specifically for meetings with speakers who were driving an agenda dictated by Lambeth.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicester), opposing the motion, said that the debate had happened and he was sure the Society would look at the matter carefully again.

JOHN GENTLE said that Roger Mills had talked about living within a reduced budget. But he did not want his branch programme to die within a reduced budget, which would happen in the long term if it were starved of finance. There had been no reduction in activity this year because the branch was spending its reserve. Next year would see reduced activity.

The motion was carried.

Council asked to observe YPG modernisation principles

The meeting asked that changes recommended to the structure of the Society should observe the modernisation principles proposed by the Young Pharmacists Group and agreed by the National Pharmaceutical Association and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.

Proposing a motion to that effect, DOREEN NOVAK (West Metropolitan) said that the YPG modernisation principles dealt with the Society's function, the composition of its governing body and accountability. These principles were: the modernised Society had to have equal emphasis on regulatory issues and membership affairs; the structure of it governing body had to allow for independent consideration of Government policies that might impact adversely upon the profession; lay members of Council should not be involved in determining policy with respect to professional issues; the number of pharmacists on the governing body should be similar to that on the current Council; the Society had to be accountable to its pharmacist members for promoting the profession and for the development of professional roles and opportunities; the Society had to be accountable to pharmacists, the Government and the public for the regulation of the profession . The Society also had a duty (as set out in its current Charter) to safeguard and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of their profession.

GAVIN MILLER (West Metropolitan) said that, following the Council's decision that the Society would retain both its regulatory and professional roles, the members had heard a lot about the changes necessary for the Society to become a 21st century regulator but little about the ways in which it would continue to undertake its professional roles. The YPG principles would provide a platform for the Society to put equal emphasis on regulatory and membership issues. Pharmacists deserved better than the current proposals.

ROGER MILLS (Slough) said that in a major policy decision the Council had decided that the YPG proposals were unworkable and unlikely to meet with Government approval. Any vote in support of the motion therefore had to be taken as a vote of no confidence in the Council.

MARK KOZIOL (Birmingham) said that the Council's current plan seriously diluted the membership side of the Society's activities — the reason why it had been established in the first place. The motion set out clearly what the members felt. It told the Council to go back and rethink because it did not have the support of the membership.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicester), opposing the motion, said that the Council had taken into account the principles agreed by the YPG, NPA and PSNC and had sought to produce a framework that met the needs of both a modern regulator and an active and energetic membership body. He had seen no evidence to suggest that the proposals would not allow the Society to go forward, to continue to do what it had sought to do for many years.

JOEL HIRST (Bristol) said that the members were cynical about the balance of regulatory and membership activities. They wanted a focus on membership activity. But the leadership was not listening to them. He urged the Council to listen to the members' sentiments about where they wanted the Society to go.

BILL BROOKES (South Cheshire) said that his branch was bothered by the principle that lay members of Council must not become involved in determining policy in respect of professional issues. His experience over a number of year was that lay members of Council were worth listening to. They made an immense contribution to debate, often far better than the other Council members. They were listened to because they had wise heads, and they could often get across things that sometimes pharmacists were too close to to see. He would not vote for the motion for that reason, although he hoped the Council would take the rest on board.

The motion was carried.

Proposal for "less frightening" PILs

The meeting unanimously endorsed a motion calling for patient information leaflets (PILs) to be made less frightening and more user friendly.

Proposing the motion, Dr TONY PUGH (Brighton) said that PILs could be confusing. They should be redesigned to ensure that they helped people to understand their medicines' actions, uses and side effects.

ALAN ASHER (East Metropolitan), seconding the motion, said that PILs were produced not to help patients but to cover the manufacturer against legal claims.

NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said that a confusing aspect of patient leaflets was the information on the incidence of particular side effects. A patient who read about a "risk of diarrhoea" might well have in mind a risk of perhaps 30–50 per cent, whereas the real risk might only be 0.3–0.5 per cent.

Dr NICOLA GRAY (Harrow and Hillingdon) said that the frightening nature of PILs offered an excellent opportunity for pharmacists to play their role of educator, navigator and informant. At the moment all patients receiving a beta-blocker, for example, received the same leaflet, regardless of what they were taking the drug for. Leaflets should be designed for particular conditions.

Dr HOWARD McNULTY (Glasgow) said that it was not true that all beta-blocker patients received the same leaflet, because leaflets differed between different manufacturers. That added to the confusion. There was a need for more standardised leaflets for patients taking generic products.

The motion was carried.

Review of medicines packaging requested

The meeting called for an extensive review of the packaging of medicinal products in an attempt to reduce dispensing errors and patient confusion arising from similarities in packaging.

Proposing a motion to that effect, ELIZABETH DORAN (British Pharmaceutical Students Association) said that packaging different products in uniformly sized boxes with a set format increased the risk of the wrong pack being selected in the dispensary.

RACHEL MILTON (BPSA), seconding the motion, said that similarities between packs also caused problems for the patient away from the pharmacy setting.

The motion was carried.

Call to publish new members' names

The meeting called for the names of newly registered pharmacists to be published in at least one national broadsheet newspaper.

KRISTY LINK (British Pharmaceutical Students Association) said that newly qualified pharmacists who had invested five years to become members of the profession were not receiving recognition of their achievements. Publishing their names would make them feel valued. It might combat an increasing apathy among new pharmacists and thus be an investment in the future. It would also add prestige to the profession's profile, putting it in the same league as those professions that already published the names those passed their professional examinations.

ELIZABETH DORAN (BPSA) seconded the motion.

SUE CARTER (Worthing and West Sussex) suggested that the notice should be paid for from a tiny proportion of the funds paid by preregistration trainees during their year, but that it should be a celebration of those who join register as pharmacists rather than those trainees who pass the registration examination. There should be one notice a year when the bulk of the newly qualified pharmacists enter the Register.

The motion was carried.

Plea to involve membership in charitable status decision

The meeting called for the involvement of the membership in any decision to seek charitable status for the Society.

On behalf of the Oxfordshire and Hull branches, IAN HARRISON (Oxfordshire) moved: "that in relation to the Society seeking charitable status, (a) there must be full consultation with the membership using all available information, (b) the membership should be satisfied that charitable status does not contravene the Society's Charter, (c) the membership must be reassured that the Society will not give away the family silver and (d) a referendum of all members must be held before Council's proposal for charitable status is taken further."

Mr Harrison said that the annual general meeting had heard that the Council's financial discussions on the matter might not yet have been thorough enough. No detailed cost benefits study had been done. It could be argued that no proper risk management had been done. Figures for potential tax savings had ranged widely, from £140,000 to £1.1m. Was it sound business the way the matter had been conducted so far?

Was charity law changing? The implications were unknown, so although the Council said that timing was irrelevant, he suspected it was relevant. What would happen to the Society's assets if for some obscure reason it had to be wound up? The AGM had been told by an expert that the assets could not be distributed to the membership but could go to an organisation with a similar purpose. The publications arm was potentially valuable. Future profits from that could go elsewhere.

Had pharmaceutical thoroughness been circumvented? The Society's biggest assets, its property and its publications arm, needed to be future-proofed, so that members could be involved in a co-operative way if the Society, heaven forbid, was ever wound up.

GRAHAM HILL (Hull), seconding the motion, said that one important question was whether charitable status would contravene the Society's current Charter. A look at the Charity Commission website suggested that the Society would have to restrict its activities exclusively to "purposes beneficial to the community". The commission would probably prevent the Society from carrying out a key object under the current Charter — that of maintaining the honour and safeguarding and promoting the interests of the members in the exercise of their profession. The commission's website also stated that the greatest disadvantage of charitable status was that it restricted political and campaigning activity. How could a membership organisation like the Society operate effectively with such restrictions upon it?

If the Council decided to proceed with an application, it should be truly democratic and present both sides of the argument openly and honestly to the members, who should be allowed to weigh up the arguments and have their say through the ballot box.

MAURICE HICKEY (Moray and Banff) said that there had been no democracy in the Society in the past few years. When Mark Walker's proposals for a referendum on the move to charitable status was passed at the AGM, the President had said that it would not be binding, even if passed, because he said there was no proposal. As someone pointed out, it was there in black and white: "Council in considering the proposal ... made its decision." No one knew what that decision was. He was fed up not being told what was going on.

BRUCE RHODES (Cheltenham and Gloucester) said that although he still had doubts about charitable status he withdrew the reservations he had expressed at the AGM about not being able to make political approaches. He was able to do so because, overnight, the Society's staff had produced a detailed letter, given to him that morning, which satisfied him on that point. He congratulated the staff on their excellent work.

The motion was carried.

Council asked not to separate off publications activities

A motion calling on the Council not to proceed with its proposal to hive off its publications activities to a separate company met with the approval of the meeting.

BRUCE RHODES (Cheltenham and Gloucester), proposing the motion, said that he was reasonably convinced that the Council was doing what it thought best, but the members did not know, because they had not been told the rationale. He was concerned that a future Council, with fewer pharmacists on it, might decided to sell all or part of the publications activity to pay the cost of running the enlarged Council.

BRENDA ECCLESTONE (Cheltenham and Gloucester) seconded the motion.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire and Rutland) said the motion would block the Council from intelligently running the Society.

The motion was carried.

ID cards sought for "active" pharmacists

The meeting asked for identity cards or equivalent identification for "active" pharmacists once mandatory continuing professional development is introduced.

Dr NICOLA GRAY (Harrow and Hillingdon) moved: "that when pharmacists are required to submit regular CPD records to remain an 'active' practitioner, then these pharmacists should be issued annually with a form of identification that is easily recognisable to employers, other health care professionals and pharmacy colleagues." She said that the principle was to make active practitioners readily identifiable while ensuring that the costs of identification were fairly met.

GIANPIERO CELINO (Harrow and Hillingdon), seconding the motion, said that many people were becoming concerned with the need to be sure that health care practitioners delivering services to patients were who they purported to be.

NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said that his branch believed the motion was too early because no one yet knew what would constitute an active practitioner.

CATHY COOKE (Bristol) said that her branch thought the motion unnecessary. The onus for confirming registration status rested with the employer who could contact the Society or check the online register.

Summing up, Dr GRAY said that in a new world with a new register the certificate might no longer be enough. It was important to propose the motion now so as to play a part in determining policy. Three or four years down the line the decisions would already have been made.

The motion was carried.

No support for technician restriction

The meeting did not support a proposal that would limit technician representation on the future Council to those working in community or hospital practice. The motion was moved by IAN HARRISON (Oxfordshire) and seconded by GRAHAM HILL (Hull).

Reduced fee proposal rejected

The meeting rejected a Harrow and Hillingdon branch proposal that, when mandatory continuing professional development was introduced, pharmacists employed outside mainstream pharmacy practice should be able to pay a reduced fee to remain in the Society as “non-active” members. The proposal was moved by STEVEN CURTIS and seconded by GIANPIERO CELINO.