PJ Online | PJ Letters | Council election

In the aftermath of the Council elections, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society finds itself in a truly sorry state. It now has a governing body which is hopelessly non-democratic. The 17 members of Council were elected by just 22 per cent of the electorate, and the 10 lay members are to be appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission, a Government quango. In reality, they are Government appointees.

Although the majority of elected members are supporters of the Save Our Society campaign, and hence can be expected to fight for the good of pharmacy as a profession, it is a sad commentary on the state of the Society that 78 per cent of the electorate simply do not care about their futures and are prepared to leave this to chance and the whims of Government appointees. How much better it would have been had the whole electorate voted. The elected members of Council could then speak with the full authority of the profession. Now they are little more than a pressure group elected by a tiny minority: so wherein lies their power and authority?

The reasons for the appallingly low turn-out in this crucial election need to be fully investigated if the profession is to retain any semblance of authority over itself in the future. Why did eight out of every 10 pharmacists fail to put their “X” against the array of candidates and post their votes at no cost to themselves? The answer must be apathy. But why is this apathy so universal? Why have the so-called reforms to community pharmacy not been heartily endorsed through the ballot box? Obviously, pharmacists just do not care. If they did care they would vote.

I suggest that the reason why pharmacists do not care and do not vote is because they cannot see any significant change for the better in the near, medium or long-term future. It must also be remembered that many pharmacists are employees of chains, multiples and supermarkets whose horizons are defined for them. So what are these individuals voting for?

It is also a fact of life that more than ever pharmacists are trapped in the dispensary. Last year 690 million NHS prescriptions were dispensed. This was an increase of 6 per cent on the previous year. By 2008 the figure could be up by another 140 million to 830 million. Preregistration trainees, high in their expectations of a full professional life, find that they do little more than work on dispensing conveyor belts. Even more depressing for these MPharm graduates is that they see their qualified colleagues doing precisely the same, year in and year out.

The fear for the profession must be that the only way out is for more dispensing to be undertaken by technicians and eventually by robots. What then? Is there really life in medicines management, repeat prescribing and general medical counselling? I doubt whether this will be the case while there is an ever-increasing need for dispensing activity.

The election of the new Council and the start of the new contract for community pharmacy should herald an exciting new era for pharmacy. The 22 per cent vote says it all: pharmacists have been dumbed down, lobotomised and emasculated. Can we fight back to gain control of our future? Do we know what we want to control and have a clear idea of what our future should be? Or has apathy won out?

I gave my support in the Council election to the SOS candidates because I considered that at least they stood for something, and that something was worth supporting. At least they were political in the sense that they had a manifesto. What we want right now are other groupings and more political activity. If this does not happen the election of Council members will remain the meaningless exercise it has become.

Philip J. Brown
Weybridge, Surrey

I predict the sinking of the Society

From Mr A. J. Burr, MRPharmS

There will be many pharmacists who will shout from the rafters that the Save Our Society boat has finally docked. The more informed recognise the disaster that is no longer on the horizon. Rather than save the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, history will show that the campaign actually sank the profession.

I predict that the greatest power our profession had, namely self-governing autonomy, will now go and we will be cut adrift in the sea of health care professions related to medicine.

And we can no longer guarantee that pharmacists will have a seat at the table of health care regulators or have the ear of the Government.

My greatest regret is that so many fellow members and colleagues, including many of the newly elected Council members, will believe they have secured a great victory when the reality is that they charged up the wrong hill and have completely misunderstood the Government’s agenda. When the inevitable split comes — and, mark my words, it will — we should all remember that it was pharmacists themselves who decided to steer the profession into an iceberg that was clearly visible from afar.

Make no mistake, history will paint the election result in its true colours — the sinking of the Society.

Andrew J. Burr
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Disturbed at “single issue” remit

From Dr M. J. S. Burden, FRPharmS, and Mrs V. E. L. Burden, FRPharmS

We feel deeply disturbed to see that the election for members of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (PJ, 16 April, p441) has resulted in a Council with a “single issue”

remit. We now urge those who have been elected to remember that they represent the whole profession and that they should have the interests of the patients we serve as their prime concern.

Michael and Vela Burden
Leicester

More time needed for overseas members

From Mr I. A. Benjamin, MRPharmS

I received my ballot paper for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council election on 11 April. (Air mail from the UK usually takes about a week to reach Sydney.) When I looked at the form, I read that the completed ballot had to be received by the independent scrutineer no later than noon, on 11 April. Although I accept planning mishaps can happen from time to time, may I suggest for future elections that the independent scrutineer be given more time to accept and count votes from overseas.

Andrew Benjamin
New South Wales, Australia

ALEX LONIE, of Electoral Reform Services, states:

All overseas postings were despatched by air mail on 14 March and 839 packs went to Australian members. They were sent first class.

The Royal Mail states that the delivery time is five days after the date of posting. This means that the latest date items would have been delivered would be 21 March. ERS has no control over the delivery arrangements once the mail has been collected.

This instance would appear to be a one off. However the ballot period was four weeks. This is, if anything, more generous than many other professional organisations allow. ERS considers that the timetable followed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society allows sufficient time for all voters, including overseas members, to cast their votes.

The Society will be under close scrutiny

From Professor R. W. Fitzpatrick, MRPharmS

As chairman of the Hospital Pharmacists Group committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, I feel I must comment on the outcome of the recent Council elections. From a secondary care perspective, we have lost experienced mainstream hospital pharmacy representation on the Council. Where will the hospital clinical perspective come from? While the Welsh representative has a hospital background, this election has demonstrated that the make-up of the Council can change dramatically from year to year, and a future Council may have no hospital pharmacists at all. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation in view of the fact that that hospital pharmacists make up over 20 per cent of the profession’s workforce.

How will the Council ensure it has a cross section of views when making policy decisions for the whole of the profession? Although the sector subgroups exist within the Society’s framework, their relationship with the reformed Council is unclear. Furthermore, how will the Council know when to seek advice, since “you do not know what you do not know”?

I echo the sentiment in your editorial (PJ, 16 April, p440) and urge the Council to consider carefully how it will ensure it has the breadth and depth of knowledge to understand issues across the whole profession. As we enter a new era, the Society, as regulator of our profession, will be under close scrutiny. There will be plenty of banana skins to slip on and we can not afford any more debacles.

Ray Fitzpatrick
Chairman, Hospital Pharmacists Group
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Editor patronises the electorate

From Mr G. M. Alexander, MRPharmS

I note the inferences drawn in the leading article (PJ, 16 April, p440) that in the real world of pharmacy the electorate have rejected that members of the Council should represent the whole profession and not just a faction — just like the old Council rejected the outcome of consultation with the members on the basis “if you only know what we know”. I find the same mindset being applied to the current Council election result by the editor of the PJ.

The editor patronises the electorate by arguing that they may not have chosen the new Council wisely. It would not have surprised me had the editorial suggested the banning of democratic elections in favour of a Council picked for our profession by the editor!

Gerald Alexander
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

New Council must represent all

From Mr J. A. S. Buisson, MRPharmS

Members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society work in many diverse areas, both inside and outside the NHS, overseas and in Britain. The new Council will need to remember this as it starts its new era.

It is disappointing that despite all the arguments about retention fees (which affect all members), turnout in Council elections remains stubbornly low. This illustrates the gulf that has developed between Lambeth and the vast majority of the profession. The practising declaration and the rise in retention fees, especially for part-time or overseas members, has created a new “fallow year” with around 3,500 pharmacists either resigning from, or being struck off, the Register since the start of the year. Many of these resigning may have only been working sporadically, but they seem to have been cast aside without, in most cases, a word of thanks for their contributions over the years. Some might be persuaded to return.

The members obviously do not see the Society as making their professional lives easier — quite the reverse, in fact. If the new Council fails to address this then it will be in danger of doing itself out of a job completely. The Society is nothing without its members, but I expect that most pharmacists would struggle along somehow if the Society (in its current form) ceased to exist.

The new Council springs from the new Charter. As a new member I do not feel bound in perpetuity by all the decisions made before I was elected. Most of these can (and should) be re-examined in the light of changing circumstances and the new make-up of the Council.

Finally, has the editor really forgotten the three years I spent working for her and the five for her predecessor (PJ, 16 April, p440)? I still remember my career roots in the hospital, industry and journalism branches of pharmacy. I hope they will be helpful in my new role.

Jonathan Buisson
Council Member Elect
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

For clarification, Mr Buisson spent his preregistration year in hospital pharmacy from 1988 until 1989 and worked in industry from 1989 until 1995 when he joined The Journal. He left us in 2004 to take up a position with Moss Pharmacy.
— EDITOR

The age of unreason is over

From Mr H. Patel, FRPharmS

Your leading article, “New Council — new era” (PJ, 16 April, p440), rightly heralds the changes on the new Council but it is very much an “ah, but” type of editorial. Your bottom-line question was: Save Our Society candidates might have been elected but have they got the experience to do the job?

You failed to mention that, in 1997, after 18 years of Conservative rule when the New Labour Government was elected, its Cabinet had as much experience of governing the country as the Liberal Democrats, ie, no experience at all. That was supposed to be bad for the country. Soon, that same Government will be elected for the third consecutive term. There are always strengths and weaknesses and there are always ways to fill the gaps in the system, and I am sure the new Council will fill them adequately if not with distinction.

It has to be recognised that the age of unreason is over. Over several years we have had Councils with dictatorial tendencies. Well, there is now a clear message for the future, is there not?

The challenges the new Government faces after election include: managing diversity and inclusion and involvement of people; the ageing population and the need for new migration; the introduction and management of technology; a greater need to work with changing social institutions and perceptions of accountability; how we organise our workforce through new patterns of work, education and training; fairer taxation and economic policies; protection of the environment while encouraging progress; and, finally, reducing health inequalities. In this context and, other than in the scale of work, are the new Council’s priorities going to be any different? On the Council and elsewhere there will be paradoxes at the heart of things. The challenge of the future is to find an acceptable pathway through the paradoxes. In such circumstances where innovation is required experience can sometimes be a handicap and wisdom can be an invaluable asset.

The question to address is not what happened or why. But could this be a moment in time when a door opens and lets the future in? What role could we play to manage change successfully at the core of the profession and at the interfaces, with sympathy and compassion, with courage and determination, with radical intent but benign and positive style?

The members have had their say: show respect for the members but let the future in.

Hemant Patel
Vice-President
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

A clean sweep?

From Mr C. Michaels, MRPharmS

Further to the recent Council election (PJ, 16 April, p441) my hope is that the wind of change will now blow through the corridors of 1 Lambeth High Street. We now have the opportunity for a Royal Pharmaceutical Society which genuinely reflects the aspirations of its members, to enhance the role and public perception of the profession and best serve the interest of patients. To fulfil the promises it has made to the electorate the new Council will need the full support of the Lambeth executive. It is clearly time for those senior staff associated with the former regime (which advised the Council to pursue some of most divisive issues of recent years) to do the honourable thing and move on.

Coll Michaels
Watford, Hertfordshire

Some faction!

From Mr D. I. Simpson, FRPharmS

How you can describe candidates who enjoy the popular support of the membership as being representative of a faction beats me (PJ, 16 April, p440). Chambers English Dictionary defines a faction as “a company of persons associated or acting together, mostly used in a bad sense”.

Your so-called faction wants to preserve the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, not only as a regulator of pharmacy, but as a professional association vigorously promoting the interests of pharmacists. The members clearly believe that to be a good thing. And so should you.

Douglas Simpson
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Statutory Committee)