RPS members will head to the polls this week to determine whether the body will register as a new charity – The Royal College of Pharmacy.
The proposal has proved controversial, with one past RPS president and current English board member last week launching a “vote no” campaign and the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) urging the RPS to “abandon its hastily convened ballot”.
But now, the RPS has responded to the concerns, saying that it is “disappointed by the position taken by the PDA”.
Read more: ‘Resign immediately’: RPS royal college row heats up as vote looms
In an open letter to the union, it yesterday (March 10) said that the proposals were “put forward following a democratic process during which elected members of [its] Assembly have reviewed, amended and unanimously approved” them.
Members of the three national pharmacy boards have also “emphatically supported” the proposals, it added.
And it said that the “historic vote” – which is open from March 13 until March 24 and must be “supported by two thirds of those members who vote” to pass – follows an “extensive period of engagement” with members and stakeholders.
“Unanimous recommendation”
“We urge members and fellows to exercise their vote and support the unanimous recommendation of the RPS Assembly members, who together with our national pharmacy boards and alongside a wide range of pharmacy stakeholders, are endorsing the proposals,” the letter said.
“This is something many have been calling for over a number of years and the time to act is now,” it added.
Read more: RPS: Renew now or miss out on royal college vote
The letter, signed by the RPS president, treasurer, chief executive and three national pharmacy board chairs, said that this is a “significant moment in the evolution of the professional leadership body”.
Responding to concerns that it is “acting in a way that damages the pharmacist interest”, the RPS added that “championing pharmacy to government, industry and others will remain central” to its work.
“Professional independence is a cornerstone of the current RPS and will remain a cornerstone of the future royal college,” it said.
Charity competition concerns
The RPS also sought to allay concerns that if it were to become a registered charity, this would have a negative impact on the sector’s existing charity.
In a joint statement with Pharmacist Support, it yesterday said that the charity had raised concerns that its objectives would “overlap with Pharmacist Support’s existing work”.
But it stressed that the proposed changes to its Royal Charter are “not intended to create competition” between the organisations but instead reflect “a long-standing commitment by the RPS to benevolence”.
Read more: RPS board member resigns over royal college strategy
“If the special resolution is approved by members, the RPS intends to ensure that its commitment to benevolence is delivered effectively through strengthening the partnership with Pharmacist Support,” it said.
The organisations will review their “existing partnership agreement…to align with the new structure and goals of the Royal College of Pharmacy”, it added.
CPhOs: “Vote in favour”
Meanwhile, the four UK Chief Pharmaceutical Officers (CPhOs) have spoken out in support of the proposed changes.
A joint statement today (March 11) posted on X by England CPhO David Webb said that they “strongly encourage RPS members and fellows to take this historic opportunity to vote in favour of a Royal College of Pharmacy”.
“A royal college is the optimum vehicle for the realisation of everyone’s ambitions for pharmacy, underpinned by a genuine process of co-creation and continued collaboration,” it added.
Read more: RPS announces bid to become ‘Royal College of Pharmacy’
The CPhOs stressed that they have “already committed significant leadership, expertise and resources to the process” of establishing “authoritative, effective and sustainable” pharmacy leadership and a “coherent professional voice”.
“We have arrived at a moment when we all need to work together with trust, openness and mutual understanding so we are able to reap the considerable benefits for all those working in pharmacy,” they said.
Other supporters of the RPS’ plans last week called for dissenting board member Martin Astbury - who said he felt “pressured into compliance” and that he will resign if his “vote no campaign” fails - to “resign immediately”.
