"Country Doctor"
JOIN CDA NEWS INDEX POLITICS DISPENSING EDUCATION FEATURES BOOKS SMALL ADS GP FEES LIGHT BITES LINKS FEEDBACK
Agenda
rigging at BMA Conference?
with post-ARM comment
David
Roberts
|
One has to wonder whether the Agenda for the
forthcoming June/July ARM of the BMA is being gently tweaked to avoid
the open discussion of an awkward subject, the implementation of the new
GP contract.
For the uninitiated the setting of the Agenda for the ARM is a fairly complicated process. The BMA is divided up into many local branches, the Divisions, and some months before the ARM these divisions individually meet to make a decision on the motions they wish the ARM to discuss. These are then sent to BMA House where the elected Agenda Committee of the Association meets shortly before the Conference to make their choice of motions. The chosen ones are placed on the Agenda paper. There are a large number of motions and some are indicated as being unlikely to be reached. Amongst the latter, this year, is a motion from Buckinghamshire Division of the BMA criticising the new GP contract. The GP section is allowed just a trivial 20 minutes and it has been placed late on Tuesday afternoon when the Press will have left. The Section will open with the GPC Chairman's report. He is a slow speaker and is hardly likely to criticise the contract he negotiated. It will be followed by debates on two relatively minor, and certainly uncontentious subjects, after which the section will close and the meeting move on. In effect the Agenda committee have by their choice of motions permitted the Chairman of GPC to eulogise the new contract and, at the same time, will deny any debate to the contrary. The ARM is the Annual meeting of the parent body, the BMA itself and its own Agenda Committee will have denied the meeting any right to express any opinion on the implementation and present effects of the new GP contract. This is, I believe, intolerable and a gross betrayal of the trust which is put in them by the Association's members. The apologists - and despite my personal approach a few days ago to the Chairman of the Agenda Committee I have heard nothing from that committee - the apologists say that some similar motion may (just, may) come from the preceding week's LMC Conference. That is not good enough and, in any case, very uncertain. I have also been reminded that Representatives to the meeting may ballot for a motion to be discussed but that debate will be at 11.40 a.m. on the Thursday when the meeting ends at midday. Just the place to bury a contentious debate - if there is a quorum left. A bit like New Labour and again not good enough. At the very least the Committee has been very stupid but, worse, they have laid themselves open to the charge of rigging the conference Agenda paper in favour of the GPC leadership. The last thing which that leadership wants is a public rocking of the boat on the subject of the new GP contract. I have asked the Chairman of the Agenda Committee, the ARM Chairman and the committee to repair the damage by taking three actions: 1. Prioritise the Bucks motion 2. Allow more time for the GP section 3. Place the GP section at an earlier time in the day. As yet, they have not troubled to reply. That being so, I think their position is absolutely clear. David Roberts Post-ARM comment Needless to say none of the above happened. Indeed, there was worse. How many coincidences is one to believe in before cynicism takes over? The ARM Agenda Committee saw fit to continue to prioritise minor matters over the major matter of the new contract implementation. It influenced them not one jot that the Chairman of GPC would allow himself at least 10-15 minutes to explain what a bloody good job he had done whilst those who may wish to explain that it was a great deal less good than he claimed, were prevented from expressing that opinion in an open debate. The dissenting Motion, 362, remained buried in the long grass. Nothing must be allowed to rock the boat on Chisholm's day. My attempt to gather just 25 votes at the ARM for it to be debated failed, despite handing out over 150 explanatory flyers to Representatives. It seems that just 7 votes were cast - including mine, that of a helper and one other identified supporter. I was unable to gather how the votes were counted. I do know that one GPC negotiator rather clumsily attempted to warn me off the distribution of the flyers. Another coincidence. However, as a sop, two minor dissenting Motions, 559 and 560, which complained about a limited number of specific contract items, were transferred from the Local Medical Committee Conference. Your editor put himself down to speak in them. The meeting was running late but the General Practice session started with ample time to conclude it before the termination of the scheduled Tuesday afternoon session. There was around half an hour left and the section was timed for 20 minutes. Dr Chisholm expended several minutes (10 , at least) with his "magic and mystery" eulogy speech and then Conference Chairman allowed one, non-contentious debate before telling the Representative Body that the rest of the GP section would be arranged for a later date. The ARM Chairman then went on to extend the session by 10 minutes without explaining why this still prevented the GP section from being continued. Yet another coincidence. No definite time was given for the resumption of the GP section but one or two motions were shoved in here and there. I was unable to find out any details of a resumption from the Agenda Desk or even when and which motions would be debated. General practice did, in fact, suffer a severe mauling from the agenda committee. Another coincidence? The final, rather damning matter, was that the two LMC Motions, 559 and 560, for one reason or another were never debated. Mission completed. No dissent on the New GP Contract at this year's ARM. But what a travesty of fairness and open debate. General practice, as a craft, was insulted and demeaned whilst the image of the BMA was tarnished. All this both angers and saddens me. I am angry because free debate was denied and saddened because it cheapens the reputation of the Association. At this stage it is not possible to say whether all the above were coincidences or whether there was some larger malign influence out there. Maybe, one day we will know but I doubt it. David Roberts
|