Some former Council members are ineligible for re-election until next year at the earliest
Former Council members who left the Council in 2003 or 2004 after more than six years’ continuous service are not eligible to stand in this year’s election to the new Council, the Council has confirmed at the February
Council meeting.
The Council decided not to seek to remove this restriction when it approved
a clarifying amendment to the proposed regulations for election of Council
members.
The new regulations prevent anyone who has served three consecutive three-year
terms of office from seeking re-election until three further years have
passed. The clarifying amendment was proposed by the Privy Council’s
advisers to make clearer an exemption designed to allow some continuity
between the old and new Councils this
year.
The exemption allows current Council members with more than six years’ service
to serve for one further three-year term and those with six or fewer
years’ service to serve for a further three consecutive terms.
When the Council debated the amendment, Gill Hawksworth said that she
did not recall the Council agreeing that anyone who served three consecutive
terms and had left the Council after May 2002 would be ineligible to
stand until three years after leaving the Council.
Christine Glover said that she had not understood that the business about
not being eligible for three years would be applied retrospectively.
That interpretation had been made since the Council discussed the regulations.
The Secretary and Registrar said that it was not a question of interpretation
being made subsequently. The exception was made in terms of the current
Council to take account of the need for continuity.
Hassan Argomandkhah said that electing someone who had not served since
2003 would not be providing continuity.
The Secretary and Registrar said that if the Council wished to extend
the exemption it would have to take the matter up urgently with the Privy
Council. Answering a question from Patricia Hoare, she also confirmed
that any long-serving current Council member who did not seek re-election
this year would have to have a three-year break.
Gerald Alexander said that he found the idea of retrospection reprehensible. “So
far as most of these regulations are concerned … they are basically
a load of rubbish, ” he said. “Elections for any professional
body should be free and fair. We have a ring of fire drawn around the
Council by the Department of Health or the Privy Council, whichever way
you would like to put it. Quite frankly, you have to jump out of the
hoop, then jump back in the hoop. It is absolute nonsense.”
The President pointed out that the matter only related to the one election
and affected just two or three individuals.
A proposal to seek a change was then put to the vote and was lost. There
were three votes in favour, eight votes against and five abstentions.
The Council also noted that the consultation period on the proposed regulations
for the election of Council members was due to end on 9 February, after
which the responses received would be forwarded to the Privy Council.
It was reported that five responses had been received, three of them
from individual pharmacists and two from groups.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal