A Public Relations leaflet I’ve received in the post, like the content presented to Members in two webinars held after the publication of the draft Charter in February 2025, includes no information whatsoever on what can be seen to be the radically re-written Charter being foisted upon us. Instead, one has to search the Society’s website to find information linked from its RPS Charter Changes webpage.
The draft Charter is silent on the composition of the Board of Trustees, and the Senate, and the National Councils, except that these should be set out in the Regulations which would be made from time to time by the Trustees, who would solicit representations but would not be bound by the Charter to modify content in light of any representations.
Appointees, which may be expected to include non-pharmacist civil servants, could not be removed by the membership in elections. Thus, the Charter, which has primacy, would contain no water-tight guarantee of pharmacist hegemony or democratic accountability for any of those governance committees; those asserting to the contrary are writing cheques that the draft Charter could not cash.
Further, the draft Charter provides that the Board of Trustees may establish categories of membership for non-pharmacists, without reference to the membership by way of special resolution vote (SRV) as was required to admit “pharmaceutical scientists”. Concerns, which were not new at that time, foresaw that admitting non-pharmacists into any membership category would compromise the Society’s stature as our exclusive professional body for pharmacists; now we witness the Society announcing itself publicly as also the professional body for pharmaceutical scientists.
Non-pharmacists have long had a route open to their inclusion into Membership eligibility: the four-year MPharm degree with a year’s pre-registration training and then pass the GPhC’s registration assessment. However, plans have been afoot further, to admit Level 3-trained pharmacy technicians into Society membership, at least since this was recommended by the Clarke Inquiry report of 2 April 2008. That inquiry, for any shortcomings, involved broader consultation, and its report (unlike the Firetail report) was in fact made public. It found respondents “thought that the title ‘Royal College’ might sound too elitist and that it would be off-putting to many generalists” in recommending “The title of the new organisation should be determined by its members.“
I infer the Treasurer and Vice-Chair of the English Pharmacy Board has now indicated technician admission could soon follow, in stating the proposed Royal College “will seek ever closer ties with Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK” as well as with “Pharmacy Forum Northern Ireland and other specialist pharmacy groups“. This might sound alarms for pharmacists in Northern Ireland on the future of their own exclusive professional body. In any event, pharmacists, technicians, and any other member categories from time to time, inclusive perhaps of every Tom, Dick, Francis and Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all [a reference to folk song ‘Widecombe Fair’], should be aware that no conflict of interest could emerge of representation between them, where the law would require only what would turn out to be the Trustees’ interpretation of the “public benefit” to be served.
As I implored likewise on previous SRVs, pharmacists, whatever their backgrounds and engagements, who harbour any doubts as to whether ratification might compromise or undermine the Society’s ability to represent them professionally — and indeed who wish to retain our own professional body to represent all pharmacists — should vote “NO”, while we still can.
David Tyas, MPharm(Hons) MTPharmC MRPharmS
Response from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society:
I’d like to reassure readers that the proposed Royal College of Pharmacy will always be profession-led, with a registrant majority at every level in the proposed governance structure including at Trustee Board, Senate and on our National Pharmacy Councils, which will continue to be made up of elected members as the Country Boards are at present. Pharmacists will remain as the ultimate decision-makers, as well as developing the strategy for the new Royal College.
We believe that a Royal College for pharmacy, dedicated to public benefit and with members at its core, would enable us to build a stronger, louder voice for pharmacy — to the benefit of other organisations in the pharmacy eco-system, including other professional leadership bodies, specialist pharmacy groups, trade unions, trade bodies and the regulator.
A strong, influential royal college would ensure that pharmacists are seen as being at the forefront of patient care, recognised and valued for their expertise. And a strong and collaborative royal college would be able to more effectively advocate for policies that enhance patient care and professional standards and drive excellence in practice.
But don’t just take our word for it; our elected Board members and individuals from across the pharmacy community have shared their thoughts on our proposals and why they support this historic vote.
To find out more or for answers to any of your questions, please do take a look at our FAQ page, and in particular the ‘top questions’ we’ve been asked.
Paul Bennett, chief executive, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
2 comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I find the amount of disinformation being offered to the electorate by Mr Tyas and others to be very tiresome. Whilst I respect everyone’s right to express their views, I consider it more constructive to present facts to members, rather than uninformed opinions.
There has been some concern expressed by those who would prefer that the RPS does not transition to a royal college, that the trustees could if they so wished act to create a situation where “pharmacists lost control of the professional leadership body”.
This is categorically untrue
Assembly have agreed that the board of trustees (which will have overarching accountability for the college) will ALWAYS have a majority of registrants.
Furthermore, the quoracy requirement for decisions to be taken by the board will be that there must ALWAYS be a majority of registrants present.
These safeguards will be enshrined within the Regulations, which are the governance requirements underpinning the Charter.
So, in summary, any concern that the leadership of our royal college may transfer to non-professionals is unwarranted. Indeed it would only be pharmacists themselves to blame if it were to do so.
Members can rest assured that these safeguards will ensure that the concerns being expressed will never be realised.
I am pleased to clarify this misunderstanding, and I urge members to vote in favour of this historic change.
As Ronald Reagan said, there you go again. I wonder whether readers may be perceiving a sense of déjà vu on reading the remarks of Society figures who have been championing, as Hugh Gaitskell may have put it, the end of 185 years of history of the Society as our independent professional pharmacist body. They may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
I have spoken with numerous professional colleagues of the opinion that it is regrettable to witness a past President of the RPSGB having to resort, in this august Journal, to unfounded ad hominem accusations against myself and others of offering an "amount of disinformation". Hereby, I draw this to the attention of the PJ moderators, and he should be put on notice that he would be well advised to retract this defamatory impugnment. Our arguments may very well be "tiresome" to some, but my like-minded colleagues and I are sure that at least we are not trying to deceive readers.
On the other hand, readers may find it instructive that these remarks of Society figures have appeared mainly to be copy-and-paste utterances of the sort warned about by Greg Lawton in his letter (https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/letters/whats-a-profession-without-a-professional-body) to be wary, as he put it, of "baseless assertions bereft of logical reasoning" and "awash with vacuous enthusiasm."
I find it curious that the replies to my letters have taken the form of such baseless assertions one might expect of uninformed opinions, which I have already rebutted within the body of my letters, constructively presenting facts as I pointed out the obvious that no draft Regulations to follow could bind any subsequent Trustee Boards who would be free to make their own decisions in what would be an entirely different and unrecognisable body — which Paul Bennett himself adumbrated in his 22 April 2022 blog (https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/why-the-royal-pharmaceutical-society-is-not-seeking-to-convert-to-a-royal-college-at-this-time).
Moreover, we are led to gather the draft Regulations wouldn't see daylight until later in 2025 at the earliest in the event the Society leadership get their way and the vote passes and, as I highlighted in my letter above, Regulations could be changed regardless of any representations from the Members.
Only the content of the Charter can give us any water-tight guarantees, and the proposed draft Charter (https://www.rpharms.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=FwL02tnOxNI%3d&portalid=0) repeatedly refers key matters instead to be as set out in Regulations. It is this draft Charter on which we are voting, and as such we should vote "Reject".