The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has announced a 40 per cent increase in the practising pharmacist retention fee, from this year's £283 to £395 in 2008.

This represents a partial climb-down for the Society, which in July proposed an increase of 50 per cent to £425. The change follows a two-month consultation, which received 1,145 responses and an online petition that gained 10,000 signatures in a fortnight.

RPSGB treasurer Andrew Gush said the lower increase was possible due to the freeing up of £500,000. "Further work had been done to identify potential budget savings," he said.

These included discussions with staff and pension trustees, leading to the expected reduction of the pension deficit and the benefits the fund provides.

The Society also hired an adviser who enabled it to reduce by £250,000 the £1 million bill resulting from tax changes that reduced its ability to pass liabilities to charity as Gift Aid.

Asked why these measures had not been taken earlier, Mr Gush said: "When we made the initial proposal of a 50 per cent increase this was at the beginning of our budget cycle so we were dealing with very loose conservative figures."

Correspondingly lower increases will apply to other registration fees, with some exceptions for which the Society has reduced the impact further.

These include fees for non-practising pharmacists, who see an increase of less than 5 per cent, and overseas pharmacists, which have been raised only in line with inflation.

Mr Gush said: "We recognise the impact of the fee change on members and have responded to feedback by lessening the impact on those groups who may have found the increase most difficult."

Fears of pharmacists quitting

A number of RPSGB Council members expressed concerns over the revised 2008 fees, despite the proposals being passed by an overwhelming majority vote.

Four members voted against the proposals to increase the practising pharmacist retention fee by 40 per cent, and there were two abstentions.

Before the vote, Gerald Alexander said "potentially large" numbers of pharmacists could leave the register as a result of the increase. "I would have preferred to see increases take place over a longer period," he said. But Mr Alexander added he felt "duty bound" as a Council member to support the proposals.

Another member echoed Mr Alexander's concerns about the impact on future membership to the Society as an optional leadership body once it lost its dual role also as a regulator. "When it is no longer compulsory to join, the professional body will be in a competitive market," she said.