Shutterstock.com
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) has said it will recommend that pharmacists should vote against the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s (RPS’s) royal college proposals, unless what it calls the “hastily convened ballot” is called off.
In a statement published on 7 March 2025, the PDA said delaying a vote “would allow more time for this proposal to be properly reconsidered and amended where necessary”.
“The PDA believes that it is much better to delay this matter and get it right than to hastily rush into it and get it wrong,” it added.
The RPS is due to open a special resolution vote on its proposals on 13 March 2025.
The statement was published alongside results from a survey of PDA members and non-members carried out from 18–25 February 2025 on the royal college proposals, to which 2,155 responses were received.
Two-thirds of the survey respondents (67%) said they either did not feel very well informed, or not at all informed, about the RPS proposals.
The results also revealed that “around 28%” were “supportive” of the proposals, with “over 16%” saying they were “unsupportive” and “over 55%” taking a neutral position.
Just under half of respondents to the survey (44%) said they were current RPS members, of whom 55% said they would remain a member if the society did move to become a royal college.
A small proportion (6%) said they would not remain a member of the Society, while 39% said they were “unsure”.
Just under one-third of respondents (30%) thought the RPS becoming a royal college would benefit the profession. A smaller proportion (16%) thought it would not benefit the profession, while 54% said they were ”unsure”.
The RPS said it was “disappointed” by the PDA’s position.
In an open letter published on 10 March 2025, the Society said: “The RPS has been open about the progress of the constitution and governance review at every stage. The proposals for change and the principles behind them have been the subject of numerous member communications during 2024 and leading up to the special resolution vote, not least during the engagement roadshows held during October and November [2024]. The report of which can be found here.
“Our proposals for change and special resolution vote have been put forward following a democratic process, during which elected members of Assembly have reviewed, amended and unanimously approved the proposals for change. In addition, colleagues then sitting on the three national pharmacy boards emphatically supported the proposals for change and the strengthening of their professional leadership body.”
On 6 March 2025, the UK Pharmacy Professional Leadership Advisory Board — which is made up of representatives from several bodies, including the RPS — issued a statement in support of the royal college proposal, calling it a “historic opportunity to raise the profile of pharmacy in the UK for the long term”.
The special resolution voting period runs between 13 March 2025 and 24 March 2025. More information about the proposals can be found on the RPS website.
3 comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
At last some common sense.
This new charter has been created by lawyers removing roles and members not being involved at all in its creation. The President Assembly and Board members are making promises that a new name cannot alone deliver. No one in the recent zoom call outlined a new role that needed the Royal College. There was no vision, just hope and hollow promises. The new name changes nothing, it’s the people that do that. There is nothing to attract back lost members or creative thought to attract new ones.
One of the promises for the College was how it would collaboratively shape the future of pharmacy. It has failed at the first hurdle.
The future of pharmacy is based on what the Charter will allow Trustees of the College to deliver.
Members should have been told this and asked to suggest their ideas of how the College would better deliver for them, for pharmacy professions and the public.
My 15 suggestions to “the anonymous feedback team” went into a black hole. The organisation is impenetrable, the Journal has not done its job and we have been treated as mushrooms
I suggest the College needs to promote pharmacies as being pivotal to public, community and environmental health. They are an underused resource.
It needs to engage all pharmacy professions not just pharmacists and scientists to ensure all those delivering pharmaceutical care work together to agreed standards and can access the same support on legal ethical and professional practice.
It needs to develop professional networks to retain skills knowledge and experience of retirees and engage them with universities. It could create part time roles for local pharmacy champions to stimulate practice research.
I did this in Glasgow in the 1980s and it brought creativity and effective local action on dental health, health promotion, drug misuse. All for half a day a month. This gave the community pharmacist facilitators a CV boost.
Pharmacy owners are motivated by profit and are not always pharmacists - how will the College engage them in its vision. Could it offer corporate non voting affiliation. It currently aspires to offer UK membership at a time many international students could be interested in retaining contact.
That would aid the College to help
lead the world and its qualifications be accepted worldwide.
The heritage of our profession must be better used and promoted the library and museum are important.
It’s fundamental this inadequate 3 object Charter is rethought to better support and engage members and attracts non members with a ‘can do’ approach
Charities can have charitable purposes in the following areas we work in
4. The advancement of education
6. The advancement of health
7. The advancement of ccommunity development
8. The advancement of culture, heritage or science
10 The advancement of equality
11. The advancement of environmental protection or improvement
12. The relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
13. The advancement of animal welfare
15. Any other charitable purposes
Other charitable purposes include
- the promotion of ethical standards of conduct and compliance with the law in the public and private sectors - the College sets standards to help pharmacy staff work with other professions to ensure pharmacy and medicine related legislation and ethics protect the public from counterfeit medicines, internet scams etc
- the provision of public facilities - pharmacy premises should offer consulting rooms for immediate access to health advice, some pharmacy professionals offer health promoting meetings
-the promotion of industry and commerce - the Pharmaceutical Industry creates new medicines, new treatments and new ways of administering them
- pharmacy premises provide ready access to medicines and medicinal products and advice and should develop to support communities health needs
- the promotion of improvement of the community - pharmacies should be at the centre of communities and pharmacy staff should be encouraged to identify and meet community health needs
Please look at these missed opportunities pull the vote and renegotiate the Charter to make it fit for the next 50 years. A charter with a 50 word specific object creates a poor impression and I cannot agree it though I want to see a Royal College desperately.
Listen to the PDA as a No vote will cause chaos.
I already voted 'No' for similar reasons. I have RPS membership for the support I can receive. I'm not going to have the same support going forward. Pharmacists should be front and centre when thinking about these changes.
When asked to vote for something, I do expect to be presented with the pro's and con's and I feel that I have just been given a glossy brochure. I have been a member for many years, and don't know of any young pharmacists who have joined the RPS (I don't know the national stats of course). When I have asked them why, they tell me that they don't see the point, so I do understand the need for a refresh, but, when asking members to pay in a substantial fee out of our pockets, there has to be some additional benefit - my membership is just a legacy from when it was mandatory. I occasionally use the library on-line resources.