In Views

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

Janet Morrison’s claim that disclosing how Community Pharmacy England committee members vote would invite “lobbying and undue influence by vocal parts of the sector” is neither persuasive nor acceptable in a modern, member-funded organisation, says Hemant Patel…

I read Community Pharmacy England’s official justification for voting secrecy with disappointment.

Let me be direct: this rationale would not withstand scrutiny in any modern union, professional regulator or NHS governance body.

It also raises a difficult question: are the local pharmaceutical committees and the National Pharmacy Association complicit, knowingly or otherwise, in maintaining a system that excludes contractors from meaningful oversight?

The NPA currently holds two appointed seats on the CPE committee, ostensibly to provide expert insight on behalf of independent contractors.

If so, what is the NPA’s official position on secret voting at CPE? Do their representatives support or oppose transparency? And are they prepared to publicly account for how they voted or not? If they remain silent, contractors are entitled to ask whether representation has become symbolism without accountability.

So, why does Morrison’s justification for secret voting – that it helps avoid undue influence from vocal parts of the sector – fail?

1. The very essence of democracy is to allow influence from those being represented. 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.

2. If individual votes are not relevant because consensus decisions are taken, it raises more questions than answers. Many within the profession strongly believe that informal pressure is exerted on committee members to vote a particular way.

The refusal to publish how members voted does not eliminate that pressure – it simply conceals its effects. The exercise of withholding voting records appears designed not to preserve integrity, but to shield internal dynamics from scrutiny.

Without a published voting record, we cannot distinguish between genuine consensus and backroom compromise. This is not about protecting sensitive negotiations, it is about avoiding accountability to those who pay the levy and have to live with the consequences.

If the decisions are unanimous, then publication poses no problem. If they are not, contractors deserve to know who advocated for what. That is the standard in any democratic system, and CPE should be no exception.

3. I agree with Morrison’s suggestion that “some elements of the settlement are market-sensitive” – during negotiation. But there is no market sensitivity after a contract is signed. Nor is there justification for denying contractors insight into who advocated for or against specific terms that affect their financial survival.

4. On Morrison’s suggestion that CPE consults contractors to shape strategy – being consulted on a strategy is not the same as approving a contract.

CPE suggests that contractors are “consulted” on the direction of negotiations but let’s be precise. What contractors are offered is an opportunity to comment on the broad strategy before negotiations begin.

That strategy is non-binding, contains no financial quantum and is ultimately subject to change, not just by CPE during the negotiation process, but by the Department of Health and Social Care, which may amend, delete, or reject components at any time.

In other words, contractors are invited to comment on the map but have no voice when the destination is chosen. The final negotiated settlement is agreed behind closed doors, without any formal requirement to return to contractors for approval – or even for disclosure of how their elected representatives voted.

This is not shared decision-making. It is consultation in theory, but exclusion in practice – and it reinforces the need for post-decision transparency and ratification mechanisms. That is not democratic representation.

That is centralised control masquerading as consultation. And it is entirely out of step with how other professional sectors operate, particularly when public funding and private livelihoods are both at stake.

In addition, CPE’s constitution does not require contractor ratification of national contracts. The Secretary of State’s approval (para 1.1 and 11) is required but not the approval of the contractors themselves. That is a structural flaw that must be addressed.

The Way Forward

A modern representative body must:

• Publish individual votes on key decisions.

• Allow contractors a say in final approval, especially for multiyear funding settlements.

• Embed transparency into its constitution, not avoid it under the guise of operational convenience.

No other body claiming to represent small NHS-facing businesses would be permitted to hide in this way. This is not just about how votes are recorded – it’s about who really runs community pharmacy in England.

At the moment, it is a faceless group, not the long-suffering levy-paying contractors. 

Hemant Patel is a former National Pharmacy Association chairman, PSNC vice-chairman and four-time president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.