The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has not explained to pharmacists that they will lose their professional (representative) body if they vote in favour of the proposal to turn the RPS into a royal college.
While the RPS is required to promote pharmacists’ interests, the proposed royal college would be legally required to act “for the public benefit”. It would be for the public benefit for pharmacists to form a compliant workforce — sanctioned if it falters; to have no rights that interfere with the demands of service placed upon them; and perhaps to replace them with cheaper alternatives to save public funds. Acting for the public benefit is the role of regulators, government bodies and the civil service. It is not the role of the professional body.
Pharmacists look after the public in their work. They need a professional body to look after them. Dismantling the RPS would allow non-pharmacist trustees and the unelected to be thrust upon them, and certain groups to ride roughshod over pharmacists, perniciously influencing pharmacy policy. As evident from the proposed charter, RPS members would have no power to prevent unelected trustees from filling the entire trustee board and the Senate (which replaces the RPS Assembly) with non-pharmacists, or removing the power to elect people to the Senate altogether. The trustees would also have the power to add associate membership categories at will, whether members wanted it or not.
It would be in the interests of some among those in pharmacy — for example, contractors as contractors, the government, other pharmacy staff groups and the pharmaceutical industry — for pharmacists to lose a body that acts in their interests. It could make it easier to influence pharmacy policy, in a way contrary to pharmacists’ interests.
Many statements from the RPS leadership in support of the royal college proposals are awash with vacuous enthusiasm. Pharmacists should be wary of baseless assertions bereft of logical reasoning; of things the RPS could do now dressed up as “benefits” of the college; of references to the college as a ‘professional leadership body’ (a body that acts professionally, and provides leadership for the public) instead of ‘professional body’, and undefined terms like ‘collaboration’ and ‘inclusivity’ being superficially bandied about to suppress dissent by making members feel that if they disagree, they will be viewed as not wanting to work with others.
Pharmacists should be highly suspicious that the RPS has not set out the disadvantages of its proposals. It is almost as if the RPS does not want its members to be properly informed when casting their votes.
If the proposals succeed, all of the professional body’s assets and resources, in no small part accrued through member donations since 1841, will effectively be donated to charity. The college would also compete with Pharmacist Support for donations. It may be more attractive to donate to the college because the college would have the ability to influence pharmacy policy — though this may well not be in the way pharmacists want.
What board of trustees is likely to act in ways that could alienate or offend its major donors?
A separate Royal College of Pharmacists (not Pharmacy) could be a good thing. Creating a royal college for the public benefit from the professional body, is not.
My detailed opinions on the proposals can be found here.
Greg Lawton, MPharm MRPharmS FFRPS MBCS LLM
Response from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society:
The proposals that the RPS Assembly are placing before all members and Fellows eligible to vote in the forthcoming Special Resolution Vote (13–24 March 2025) are to secure what are considered by Assembly to be the necessary changes to our royal charter required to strengthen the RPS’s role in professional leadership and support of all its members and Fellows.
The correspondent has misunderstood the role of a professional leadership body and royal college. It is not a binary choice between public good and professional support. Other respected healthcare royal colleges — also registered charities — operate successfully under similar arrangements.
An independent analysis of our constitution and governance, conducted by Firetail, illustrated the current anomaly with the arrangements of the Society compared with other royal colleges.
The vast majority of royal colleges operate as registered charities, under the regulatory oversight of the Charity Commission (in England and Wales) or OSCR (in Scotland). This benefits members and ensures proper governance. It certainly does not mean that members of the Society would be left behind — they will remain at the very heart of the organisation and in its leadership and governance structure.
Regarding concerns about terms such as ‘collaboration’ and ‘inclusivity’, the RPS is committed to these principles and takes them very seriously. We work hard to collaborate with other professional bodies, both within and outside of pharmacy, and we continue to champion the need for inclusion across our profession. We are unwavering in that commitment. We are equally as unwavering in our support of the work of Pharmacist Support, with whom we signed a formal partnership agreement in May 2024.
For more information on these proposals, endorsed by the three national pharmacy boards, members can read the comprehensive explanation and FAQs compiled after extensive member engagement — ‘RPS Change Proposals‘.
Paul Bennett, chief executive, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
