Wes Mountain (left, centre)/Jon Barlow(right)
In September 2024, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) put forward proposals to take on royal college status, pending a vote of the membership.
With the special resolution vote now underway, each of the national pharmacy board chairs tell The Pharmaceutical Journal why the Society should become a royal college at this time, what it will mean for pharmacists in their countries and how it will impact the future of pharmacy as a whole.
Tase Oputu, chair of the English Pharmacy Board
Jonathan Burton, chair of the Scottish Pharmacy Board
Geraldine McCaffrey, chair of the Welsh Pharmacy Board
More information about the proposals can be found on the RPS website or in The Pharmaceutical Journal’s dedicated hub page on the proposals.
If you have any questions that have not yet been answered, you can email them to feedback@rpharms.com.
Voting is open to full members from 13–24 March 2025 here.
4 comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Still not heard much other than soundbites
It should but not with this Charter. It is a recipe for same old same old and no vision of how to retain or regain members and grow the organisation. A new name will change nothing as the people will still be the same.
We were promised the College will Collaboratively shape the future if pharmacy with no explanation of how. The evidence of the Charter creation suggests there is no willingness to do that.
Members were not presented with a consultation on becoming a Royal College, not told the significance of the Charter, nor asked for views on what they might like to see the college fulfill. The Charter is what will deliver and what will stop delivery of things not mentioned once Trustees who are not pharmacists control the organisation.
The RPS currently has four objects for pharmacists and two have been removed by lawyers. Objects have to be short in length and broad in application so to see a 50 word power on benevolence being moved as a 3rd object when this role is fulfilled by Pharmacist Support is a nonsense. To readers it conveys the impression that is the Colleges most important role.
A college of pharmacy must have a bigger role than one for pharmacists and charitable purposes offer scope to see pharmacies and technicians being part of the offering to support communities, overseas student members being retained, new qualifications and CPD support being provided to all pharmacy professions.
My 15 suggestions to feedback have been ignored with no collaboration at all. The Society was bottom up it’s now an impersonal impenetrable organisation. The Journal has mentioned little and what’s was presented has never been investigated and like this article appears partial.
For the person leading the Royal College planning to also run the Journal is not good governance.
The PDA has called for a pause in the vote and may have enough members to produce an insufficient majority if that does not happen. You may have to search PDA to find it and my detailed comments about the Charter.
A no vote will cause chaos and show the Society in a bad light. Please listen to the PDA
I urge the Chairs of the Board to engage meaningfully with the following questions:
The Firetail review was commissioned as a direct result of the Luther Report - the Luther report was published by the RPS BUT the Firetail review has NOT been published. The RPS states:
"Firetail delivered a 60-page evidence pack with a scored options appraisal for Assembly to consider:
Assembly worked with Firetail and the Programme Steering Group to review proposals, consider the member research, and iteratively critique the proposals before making the final decision
The process included discussions at each Country Board."
My understanding is that the National Boards have NOT seen the full review with all the options NOR have they had an opportunity to engage or vote on the options of the final review at National Board Level.
Can the Board chairs confirm that whether the ALL Board members have seen the Firetail review and whether the National Boards have voted to approve the review?
Can the Board chairs also explain why the Firetail Review is not being published so that the wider membership can see all the options available?
I remind Board Chairs what the Luther review said and reflect whether the behaviour of the RPS in regard to the Charter changes has embraced the central principle of being open and transparent?
From the RPS website:
"The review was led by communications consultancy Luther Pendragon and makes 28 recommendations based on four strategic principles.
These principles which will set the direction of our communications and engagement are:
Take a proactive and considered approach
Be more open and transparent
Build member equity and agency
Focus on collaboration and be visible.!
I agree on the lack of transparency and it seems secrecy. I have just seen the UK Pharmacy Professional Leadership Advisory Board (UKPPLAB) announced on 22 January 2025 it is launching a ‘Big Conversation’ as part of a groundbreaking collaborative approach to shaping pharmacy professional leadership for the future.
‘Enabling us to be the best that pharmacy can be’ webinars will be held across the UK from 3 to 25 February 2025, giving pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and wider pharmacy team members an opportunity to have their say on a proposed vision and common purpose for pharmacy professional leadership. They ended on Feb 25th
Should these discussions not have informed the new Charter?
How can these discussions be useful in the future once the Charter is agreed?
Will the leadership body dictate to the Royal College?