Paul Bennett: ‘Becoming a royal college is the right thing to do for the profession, our members, patients and the public’

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has announced proposals to seek to move towards royal college and registered charity status. Announcing the proposals on 12 September 2024, the RPS said the proposed transition “aims to establish a stronger and more collaborative leadership body that can better deliver its strategic ambitions”. 

The proposals would require the support of a two-thirds majority of voting members. Paul Bennett, chief executive of the RPS, spoke to The Pharmaceutical Journal to explain why the Society believes this is the right thing to do, and how members will be able to share their views ahead of the vote.

Why are these changes being proposed?

Some significant changes to the Constitution and the governance of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) are being proposed to our members — for the RPS to become the Royal College of Pharmacy. 

We all know how changeable the pharmacy landscape in the UK — and across the globe — is at the moment. These changes will accelerate in the years to come, which will put higher expectations upon pharmacists and the wider pharmacy team that could have profound repercussions for professionals in terms of delivering patient care. There are rapid changes in medicines development that will continue to transform patient care and the role of technology; in data science, in artificial intelligence. 

Here in Cape Town, at [the FIP World Congress of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences] that I’m attending at the moment, there’s been a lot of discussion about the role of AI in supporting professionals, in delivering patient care and informing patient care. Closer to home, the recent commission from the four UK chief pharmaceutical officers about pharmacy professional leadership in the UK has set a challenge for the RPS, and for other professional leadership bodies and specialist pharmacy groups, that the RPS can’t ignore. 

What has been the process to support a decision for change?

The most recent major review of governance was when there was a charter change in 2010, when the regulatory responsibilities of the then RPS of Great Britain were removed, and the formation of the General Pharmaceutical Council followed. But we have had an attempt at reviewing governance of the organisation at least twice in my time here as chief executive. We know that whenever we look at the governance of the organisation in an endeavour to improve transparency, effectiveness, decision making and agility, we are always confronted by the fact that we have a very prescriptive charter. That Royal Charter, of which we’re very proud, defines in some detail how the organisation should be structured, and in particular, how governance should operate. All of that is, I think, an impetus for us to look at the optimal structure of the organisation so that we can best serve patients and the public, our members, and those who look to us for leadership in the future. 

With the support of an independent, external advisory organisation called Firetail, we have looked at what the organisational structure, the Constitution of the RPS, might be in future and how we might organise our governance around that.  

A series of proposals were created and put before Assembly — our most senior governance body presently — for them to scrutinise and challenge what those opportunities for change might be, and how they would relate to this organisation. A considerable amount of scrutiny, challenge and questioning was undertaken. The Assembly — and the three national pharmacy boards who’ve been involved in this conversation too — have unanimously come to the decision that now is the right time for the organisation to make some fundamental changes that we were unable to make in previous reviews of governance.

We’ve reached a position where we want to put to our membership a proposal for change, and we’ve heard from many across the profession that they would wish to see the Royal Pharmaceutical Society become a royal college. 

We believe it’s now time to claim that status and back it up with current and future actions. We think it’s also the right time to seek to become a registered charity, registered with the Charity Commission and with [the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR)], the equivalent in Scotland, to ensure that there’s appropriate regulation and support for the organisation.

Seeking registration with the Charity Commission and OSCR would require the creation of a board of trustees, which would change the function and scope of the Assembly as it is today, and it would also require us to ensure that we’re structured correctly, to comply with charity law in regard to all of the commercial activities of the organisation.

We would form for commercial activities — most notably, our publishing endeavours under Pharmaceutical Press, the knowledge business of the RPS — a subsidiary organisation; it would exist in alignment with the vision and mission of the organisation. Our mission is to put pharmacy at the forefront of healthcare, but our vision is to become the world leader in the safe and effective use of medicines. That alignment would be very important to maintain, and that would be our intention: create a structure through a subsidiary business that would allow commercial activities, such as publishing, to continue, but that would be wholly owned by the charity. Surplus profit that would be made from commercial endeavours would be transferred to the charity to enable the charity to do the great work that it needs to do.

We would seek to amend the charter, so we’re very clear about the patient and public benefit interests as one of the key objects of the reformed charter. We would seek to take our rightful place as the Royal College of Pharmacy among other professional leadership bodies, such as the medical professions. We believe that’s the right thing to do for the profession, for our members, for future members, and for patients and the public. 

In 2022, you wrote in an article for The Pharmaceutical Journal there were no plans to move towards royal college status, but it might be an option in the future. Why is this being proposed now?

The RPS Assembly considered the possible journey towards being a royal college when it was developing strategic objectives back in 2020, which ultimately led to the production of the current strategy that runs from 2021 to 2026. I wrote in a blog in The Pharmaceutical Journal that the Assembly didn’t rule out such a future move, but felt that there was so much that we needed to focus on and address at that time. This was, let’s not forget, the early days of the pandemic and all of the challenges that came with that. It wasn’t appropriate at that time, in their view, to proceed: but not to rule it out. It’s now four years on, and thankfully, we have now worked through the challenges of the pandemic, having learnt an awful lot during that period of time. I think it is a very different situation today, and that’s why the current Assembly believe it’s now the right time to progress towards becoming a royal college. 

Over the past four years, we’ve learnt a lot, and undertaken a lot, particularly in the post-registration, education and professional development space. We’ve done a lot of work around curricula development, around assessment and credentialing; a re-energised focus on patient safety, professional support and guidance. We believe, therefore, it’s the right time to take that learning forward as a royal college. We hadn’t had that experience when Assembly considered this matter back in 2020. Those fundamental shifts in our activity, our work, has meant that we’re in a different position today than we were four years ago. 

I think it’s right that an organisation is prepared to rethink its prior decisions and to make a change when the timing is right. The leadership role of this organisation is, I think, strengthened by these proposals, and in the context of the things that I’ve mentioned previously — around the Commission, the formation of the UK Pharmacy Professional Leadership Advisory Board — the alignment of all of those things means that now is the right time.

The move to become a royal college is subject to members’ approval. When will members be able to express their views on this and vote?

It’s really important that our members have an opportunity to understand why these changes are important and to discuss it with us and help shape our thinking, particularly around the future strategy for the organisation. We’re setting out on a series of face-to-face engagement events in each of the nations, where we’ll be inviting members to come and talk to us. The president and myself are intending to attend all of these events wherever possible, alongside other members of the team, to talk about not only our Constitution and governance proposals, but also the future strategy of the organisation. This is an engagement and listening opportunity, and we would welcome as many people attending these events as possible. 

There will be an invitation to join these events issued very shortly. There will be around 15 in person events and some online events for those who would prefer to join remotely. After these take place, we will reflect on what we hear, ultimately then creating a question to put to our members about these proposals for reformation of our Constitution and governance. That would result in a special resolution vote and our current governance arrangements require us to secure a two-thirds voting majority for change. That’s why the power and the authority for this decision rests with our members, and rightly so. 

It’s also right that Assembly, the boards, and myself and my team put to our members the case for change. That’s part of leadership, and this is why we have created a proposal that we think is compelling and exciting, but gives members an opportunity to shape it, and for us to incorporate feedback. Ultimately, in a special resolution vote, members have the deciding opportunity on whether or not this progresses in the way that we hope it will.

We are hoping that that the special resolution vote will take place in quarter one of 2025, potentially in March. Events will be taking place soon, in October and November.

What will be the difference between what the RPS is now and the Royal College of Pharmacy? 

When an independent review was undertaken with analysis of the professional leadership space, it became very clear that we are an anomaly among other professional leadership bodies. If you look at the medical royal colleges, for example, I think I’m right in saying that each one of them is a registered charity and a royal college, and those who are more recently formed and are not currently royal colleges are actually on a journey to becoming one.

We already do a lot of work on the sorts of activities that you would expect a royal college to be undertaking. That’s one reason why some would argue there isn’t a need to become the Royal College of Pharmacy, but we also think that how we choose to position ourselves and how we talk about what we do is important. It’s right, we think, that changing our name to the Royal College of Pharmacy is an appropriate next step in our journey towards reinforcing the leadership activities that we undertake, and the educational support that we provide to those who have a role in pharmacy and pharmaceutical science, to ensure that those practitioners can be the best they can be. The alignment is more typical of that of a healthcare royal college than perhaps it is of a society. 

In terms of legal constitution, we would be making changes here because we would register subsidiary businesses separately: our publishing entity, which at the moment is a functional division of the RPS, would be a subsidiary business. There would be charitable regulation involved in registration, which we think is helpful to provide that regulatory and legal structure and oversight for the activities that we undertake, and we believe will be readily compliant with those because of the way in which we’re organised at the moment. Having that regulatory responsibility, having a board of trustees who have very specific responsibilities as trustees to provide oversight to the organisation, we think is beneficial to the way in which we would operate. 

Are you able to share what sort of costs might be involved in this proposed change?

We do anticipate that there will be costs associated with this. Clearly, we need appropriate legal advice and have been taking appropriate legal advice. We have drawn upon the experience and the expertise of external advisors; I’ve mentioned Firetail previously. While I’m not able to share the amount at this moment in time, I have to say, the value that we have received from those who are supporting us on this journey has been immense.

Actually, I think we also have to take into consideration the cost of not changing, and the cost of not addressing the challenges that lie before us. On balance, I think this will be extremely good value for money for our members, for the organisation: and of course, we have ensured that we have budgeted for these costs. 

One of the reasons for why we want to do this now is that over that last four-year period, we’ve had four years of consecutive operating surplus: prior to 2020, that was not the case. We are now in a financial position where these changes are affordable to the organisation. We have financially strengthened the RPS over the past four years through the endeavours of all my colleagues. We have worked tirelessly to make sure that the organisation is in a much stronger, more viable and sustainable financial position than we have been before. Those four years of consecutive operating surpluses have been hard won, and it’s all credit to the teams that work across the RPS that we’ve been able to find ourselves in this position. 

A stronger financial performance, and a stronger and more stable financial position, means changes of this nature are certainly affordable to us at present. If we don’t seize the opportunity, the cost of not doing so may well exceed any cost of undertaking change.

What could a Royal College of Pharmacy look like ten years from now? 

We’re doing it for the very reasons of being future looking. We should all be very proud of the heritage of the organisation, having been formed in 1841. We have many proud years behind us and we are the custodians of the heritage of the pharmacy profession, and we certainly will want to maintain that important role going forward. That’s a given.

These changes will enable us to be a much more agile organisation, one not constrained as it is today by a very descriptive charter, able to flex and adapt to the challenges of the profession and the needs of our members, the public and of patients of the profession, and of pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists and others who are associated with the use of medicines. To be able to support clinicians to be the best that they can be, and to continue to do some of the really great work that often goes unrecognised but is so critical to safe care provision. I’m referring particularly to the work of Pharmaceutical Press, the work of the teams that pull together the clinical knowledge publications of which we should rightly, as a profession, be very proud of as coming out from this organisation. We’ll continue to do more of that, and make that available in exciting ways going forward. I’m also very proud of The Pharmaceutical Journal and its role and position in the profession, and the importance of the journal to our members. 

We’ll continue to do a lot of the great things that we currently do, but we can amplify that, because we’ll be able to be more adaptable and flexible within this new structure. But there will be rigor and control still in place, and I think that’s really important to emphasise, particularly with regard to charitable registration and the need to comply, appropriately so, with regulation in that space. 

All sorts of opportunities are before us. I think what I see is an organisation that will be fitter for the future than it’s able to be at the moment: more adaptable, more flexible, more representative of what is necessary in the professional leadership space, and an organisation that is demonstrably collaborative and seeking to work in partnership with others.