The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7369 p423
1 October 2005

Society summary

How the branches can influence the profession through the BRM

Roger Mills speaking at the branch representatives meeting in 2000

One way in which pharmacists can influence their profession is through the Society’s branches and the motions they debate at the annual branch representatives’ meeting. Roger Mills, of Slough branch, describes how his branch has used the BRM to great effect over the past quarter of a century

The local branch structure, with its annual branch representatives’ meeting, is one of the strengths of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. All pharmacists are assigned to a local branch, even if they then take no active part. For those who have concern for their profession, the branch structure offers a simple and reasonable way in which they can influence the future of the profession through the presentation of motions to the branch representatives’ meeting. In this article, I aim to show the effect that one branch, Slough, has had on the profession through proposing 24 motions in the past 25 years.

If one considers that the success of a motion should be judged by the end result, the Slough motion at the 1981 meeting must be considered as the ultimate success. The proposal that the Statement on Matters of Professional Conduct (the forerunner of the Code of Ethics) should be sent to all pharmacy graduates at the commencement of their preregistration year was withdrawn at the meeting because the Council had already put it into practice.

Other successes can also be claimed. In 1988, the BRM passed a Slough motion asking that the role of the Society’s inspectorate should be amended to place more emphasis on counselling and advice. This has significantly changed the relationship between the inspectorate and the membership. We believe that it was as a direct result of this that the inspectors’ routine visits to phamacxises 0 of inspectors, previously unannounced, were arranged and announced in advance.

In 1990, the branch proposed that a proportion of the members of the Community Pharmacy Subcommittee should be elected. This was implemented in 1993.

In 1992, the BRM passed a motion from Slough asking that members of the Association of Private Hospital Pharmacists should be included in the Hospital Pharmacists Group.

In 1998, the Council was asked to ensure that members could be identified though both maiden and married names. Although this has not been possible in the terms detailed in the motion, the Society’s registration section will now identify registration numbers though either name and will then give the other name.

The election of Council members has been a recurring issue at the BRM. In 1983 the meeting passed a motion from Glasgow asking the Council to reintroduce the seven-vote system. Slough returned to this in 1999, with a motion to reconsider the use of the single transferable vote in elections for Council, which was also passed. This topic shows how persistence is often needed to ensure that an approved motion does not languish in the farthest recesses of the Lambeth administration. The use of STV in Council elections was the subject of an afternoon discussion at the BRM in 2000, after which the meeting again supported the principle of returning to the seven-vote system. However, a year later, in 2001, the meeting deplored the lack of action by Council on the removal of STV and in 2002 it deplored the Council’s decision to refer the issue to its modernisation steering group rather than take action on it. Eventually, the will of the membership did prevail and the seven-vote system was reintroduced in 2003.

Still on the topic of Council elections, in 2000, a Slough motion to review the regulations on canvassing for Council elections received support and has been acted upon.

In several areas, the branch has been well ahead of its time. In 1986, a motion asking for the setting up of a register of qualified pharmacy technicians was passed. At the same meeting, the branch expressed concern about the disposal of toxic waste held by pharmacies throughout the country.

However, the BRM has not always supported Slough motions. In 1990 and 1995, it rejected motions asking the Council to take the necessary steps to allow dispensed medicines checked by a pharmacist to be handed out in his or her absence. And in 1993 and 1997, the BRM rejected motions asking the Council to amend the Society’s Byelaws to limit the number of consecutive terms a member may sit on Council without a break. Also in 1997, the BRM rejected a motion that one place on Council should be filled by co-option to ensure minority representation. Even if not yet activated, all of these can now be considered to be part of mainstream thought in pharmacy politics.

Motions on the working of the BRM have also been successful. In 1996, Slough proposed that the afternoon sessions should have discussion groups on topics of current interest and also that debate on motions should be limited if no-one wished to oppose them. While this latter motion has not been universally popular, it has meant that, after years when some motions had to be referred directly to Council because there had been no time for debate, all motions since have been proposed and voted on at the meeting.

Motions are proposed at the BRM for a variety of reasons, but the Slough branch has always considered that they should detail a specific action that could be taken by Council. There has been discussion over recent years about the lack of a high level of debate, but, for the Slough branch, the primary object has always been to ensure that a motion is passed. Only then, by the rules of the meeting, is the Council bound to discuss it and only then can there be a serious chance of some result.

Although the Slough branch has always contributed to the various initiatives on the development of the profession, such as the Pharmacy in a New Age and modernisation projects, there can be the feeling that individual views somehow do not have great importance. A motion to the BRM, whether instigated by an individual with a specific idea or arising from committee and branch discussions, is considered by one’s peers and then, if passed, by the Council, which subsequently will give a formal response.

In all cases, the local branch structure has offered a constructive and useful way in which ordinary members of the profession can contribute directly to the way in which their profession develops. The example of the Slough branch shows just how much can be achieved by using this structure.