The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7504 p671
31 May 2008

Society summary

AGM debate emphasises need to listen to members

At the annual general meeting on 21 May 2008, the need to heed members’ views in establishing the future professional body for pharmacy was raised by members during debate on a motion calling for a referendum on the Clarke inquiry’s recommendations. However, the motion was withdrawn after the debate.

The motion, standing in the name of Mark Walker (Oxford), read: “This 167th annual general meeting welcomes the Clarke report and notes the recommendations that should be considered by members. The AGM instructs Council to put Clarke’s recommendations to the members through a democratic process, preferably via electronic voting, at the earliest opportunity. Thereafter, as a final step, the AGM directs that Council’s proposal for the future Society be ratified by a full referendum of members and notes that Council must gain approval from 75 per cent of voting members for such a major change in the Society.”

Before the debate, the President, Hemant Patel, explained that the AGM had no power to instruct the Council. However, any motion carried would be considered carefully. In addition, changes such as amendments to the Charter or to the Society’s name would need to be rectified by a special resolution which required a two-thirds majority of those voting, not a 75 per cent majority.

The motion was then proposed on behalf of Mr Walker (who was unable to attend) by Mike Williams. He said that he and Mr Walker both felt strongly that the members who decide which recommendations of the Clarke inquiry are considered by the Transitional Committee (Transcom) appointed to look into the recommendations of the Clarke inquiry.

Seconding the motion, Steven Curtis (Harrow and Hillingdon) said that, although it was badly worded and basically flawed, he accepted its general principles. He seconded it because it wanted the Clarke recommendations to be put to the members.

Mark Koziol (Birmingham) said that Nigel Clarke had laid a superb foundation stone, but the Society needed to move on and the most important thing was whether the members bought into the report. Transcom had to have the right starting point and no one could say that the Clarke report was the right starting point. What was crucial was that the members came along in the direction that the Society wanted to head in.

A brief survey of 1,300 members of the Pharmacists’ Defence Association, of which he was chairman, had found that most did not want technicians involved in the new body, and many would not join if they were. In addition, 70 per cent said that full membership should be open to all pharmacists, including those not regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council. These were all areas that were not in accord with the Clarke inquiry.

The new initiative would only succeed if rank and file pharmacists supported it. Transcom needed a sound basis on which to build and the recommendations should be put to pharmacists to finally decide through a referendum.

Graham Phillips (member of Council) proposed amending the motion’s “75 per cent” to “two-thirds”. The amendment was seconded by Mr Koziol, put to a vote and carried.

Speaking to the amended motion, Mr Phillips said that there was a need to consider options other than a royal charter for the new body. A royal charter allowed interference by the Privy Council, and a search of news items on PJ Online brought up a number of examples of interference — often after a consultation — that had damaged the relationship between the Society and its members.

He was disappointed that the Clarke report simply reached a conclusion that the Society would keep its charter in amended form. It was important that this recommendation should also be put to the members.

Ian Simpson (Oxford) said that Council members were well aware of their responsibilities under the Charter to consult and to hold a referendum on major changes. The motion did little to foster trust in the new Council and he called on the proposer to withdraw it.

Ron Pate (Dudley and Stourbridge) asked where the motion would lead. It was desperation dressed up as democracy and should be kicked out.

Stephen Denyer (member of Council) said that Transcom was to develop a direction of travel and offer reasons for its proposals. These would then be subject to members’ consideration and consultation. The committee should be allowed to explore the breadth of membership and not to have that potential to be denied from the outset.

Christine Glover (Edinburgh), opposing the motion, said that the Clarke report and Transcom may not be perfect, but the time frame was incredibly short and immediate action was needed.

Mr Phillips said that the Council had already agreed to form Transcom and to consult members, so the motion had been overtaken by events.

Summing up, Mr Williams said that what Mr Walker was proposing was a consultation on recommendations. But it had been pointed out that the Council had agreed to this. He was not personally happy with the motion as it now stood and would therefore withdraw it.