In News

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

Concerns over voting secrecy on Community Pharmacy England’s 25-strong committee on contractual issues have intensified after the National Pharmacy Association and Avicenna called for individuals’ votes to be made public.

In May, CPE chief executive Janet Morrison defended the way its committee operates by insisting it does not reveal how individual members vote to “avoid lobbying and undue influence by more vocal parts of the sector”.

NPA chair Olivier Picard told Independent Community Pharmacist contractors had a right to know which way CPE committee members voted on funding issues and called for greater transparency.

“We absolutely support a higher degree of transparency around funding consultations,” he said. “While discussions with Government often need to be private, it’s appropriate for contractors to have better guidance about consultations that affect their livelihoods.

“CPE committee members were told at the start of the consultation process that their votes would remain private, so we understand that it’s right not to move the goalposts after the event. But we are clear that this should not happen in future and future votes should be made public.”

The NPA board nominates two of its members to sit on CPE’s committee and those places were this year taken by NPA vice-chair Sukhi Basra and board member Mike Hewitson.

Picard said although contractors were entitled to know how CPE committee members voted, those individuals must be treated with respect.

“CPE representatives were subject to some frankly unacceptable personal pressure, so we need to reset the tone of debate,” he said.

“Whatever anyone thinks of the outcome or the process, CPE representatives are just individual contractors like everyone else doing a job that needs to be done and we need to treat them with respect.

“We also need to recognise that decisions about the overall funding envelope are ultimately made by Government, so we need to focus our attention on them and speak robustly and with as united a voice as possible to secure the best possible deal for community pharmacy.”

Avicenna: Openness would help build trust and confidence

Avicenna managing director Brij Valla also called for CPE committee members’ votes to be made public and insisted there was “a strong argument for greater openness” which would “help build trust” and “give contractors confidence” in their representatives on the negotiating body.

“At Avicenna, we understand and appreciate the concerns raised regarding the transparency of voting within Community Pharmacy England, particularly in light of recent criticism,” Valla told ICP.

“The decisions made by the CPE committee have a direct and often significant impact on pharmacy contractors, especially when it comes to funding, service delivery and the overall strategic direction of the sector.

“In this context, we believe there is a strong argument for greater openness, including making voting records publicly available. Such transparency would help build trust, ensure accountability and give contractors confidence that their representatives are acting in line with the views and interests of the wider community pharmacy network.”

However, Valla said there “may be reasons for maintaining confidentiality in certain voting processes”.

“For example, anonymity can protect individual committee members from undue external pressure, allow for freer debate within the committee, and support consensus-building behind the scenes,” he said.

“Once behind-the-scenes contract confidentiality has been done with, then the final voting transparency should be available to the contractors.”

Ex-RPSGB president: Contractors deserve to know how their representatives vote

Valla also wanted assurances that CPE committee members representing the multiples “haven’t discussed contract details with their respective members or board”. There are nine Company Chemists’ Association representatives on the committee and three from non-CCA multiples.

When asked if any CCA members have in the past broken confidentiality obligations by going back to their respective companies with information to help them get a head start with a particular service weeks or months before other parts of the pharmacy sector have that information, a CCA spokesperson told ICP: “We’re not prepared to comment on hearsay.”

The CCA and the Independent Pharmacies Association did not comment when asked if contractors had a right to know how CPE committee members voted.

Picard and Valla’s call for transparency comes a few days after four-time former president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Hemant Patel criticised Morrison for her justification of voting secrecy.

“The very essence of democracy is to allow influence from those being represented,” he said. “Contractors fund CPE via LPC levies. They deserve to know how their representatives vote. We are not asking for leaks during negotiation.

“We are asking for post-decision disclosure, so elected committee members can be held to account by the contractors who elected them.”

Numark: Making votes public could subject members to undue external pressure

Numark chair Harry McQuillan, who was chief executive of Community Pharmacy Scotland for 17 years, said making individuals’ votes public offers “increased transparency” but warned “the huge risk it introduces is to undermine the ability of committee members to make decisions free from undue external pressure”.

“It could also expose individuals, particularly those representing independents, to online criticism or abuse, which may deter capable people from standing for national roles in future,” McQuillan said.

“If there is no pipeline of willing capable people, the sector will suffer.”

However, he insisted “members of any negotiating committee, regardless of how they are appointed or elected, must act in the best interests of the sector as a whole”.

“That responsibility often involves making difficult decisions that may not align with local sentiment but are necessary for the long-term sustainability of the network,” he said.

“In my experience, most decisions are reached through consensus, with formal votes used only when agreement cannot be found. When votes do take place, they are free, equal and based on each member’s understanding and judgment of the issue at hand.

“There is no hierarchy or internal block, just individuals contributing to the process based on experience and evidence.”

What do you think? Get in touch with your views at neil.trainis@1530.com