The RPSGB president had to cast the deciding vote to increase 2010 membership fees after the Council could not reach a decision last week.

President Steve Churton cast the critical vote at last week’s RPSGB Council meeting that will lead to a 2.2 per cent rise next year.

He acted after RPSGB Council members were split on backing the £9 increase with eight in favour and eight against.

The RPSGB President said he had “agonised over the vote for a few days beforehand”, but felt a fees rise was required to develop the new professional leadership body.

He said: “Where I came to was that it was a reasonable increase, it’s not too arduous for members…I was anxious to recognise the pressures on members but balance them with what I know to be the needs of the Society.”

“We’ve got one opportunity to create this new body and the last thing I want to do is to starve that body at birth. We need to nurture it,” Mr Churton told C+D.

However, Council member Tristan Learoyd said the move to raise fees was “preposterous”  and “against the grain” during the credit crunch.

Dr Learoyd, who voted against the move, said the Society had “shot itself in the foot” with the rise, which will see practising pharmacists paying £422 from January 2010.

Society treasurer John Gentle said that while the Council did not want to raise fees it was “prudent to err on the side of caution” in the current financial climate.

Last week, Society finance and resources director Bernard Kelly said the Society could lose £500,000 in revenue if fees weren’t raised.

“The Society finances are better [than last year], but resources are lower than where we would like them to be,” Mr Gentle added.

Last year the RPSGB had accumulated funds of almost £11 million and earned £17.5 million in membership payments following a 40 per cent fees hike in 2008.

What you will pay from 2010

Practising pharmacists will pay a £422 membership fee from January 2010. Pharmacists not wishing to join the professional leadership body following the Society split (scheduled for April) will be offered a partial refund.

Your views

Raj Patel, Mount Elgon Pharmacy, London

As long as they are using the hike to drive the professional leadership body forward and the money comes back to the profession and pharmacists I don’t mind.

What would you do with nine pounds?

I’d probably spend it on my children, but you don’t get much for nine pounds!

Stephen Foster, Pierremont Pharmacy, Broadstairs

I feel slightly done because the large hike was justified by the professional leadership body and should have been a one-off hit. I’m not impressed.

What would you do with nine pounds?

I don’t think it’s nine pounds. It’s not just nine, because the fee has gone up previously.

How the Council voted

Steve Churton - FORSteve Acres - AGAINST

Margaret Allan - AGAINST

Gerald Alexander - ABSTAINED

Nick Barber - FOR

Kay Blair - FOR

Cathryn Brown - FOR

Catherine Duggan - AGAINST

Dorothy Drury - AGAINSTPhillida Entwistle - FOR

John Gentle - FOR

Lorna Jacobs - FOR

Ray Jobling - ABSTAINED

Alan Kershaw - FOR

Sue Kilby - ABSTAINED

Tristan Learoyd - AGAINST

Yvonne Liddell - AGAINST

Bob Michell - ABSTAINED

Marcia Saunders - FOR

Valerie Turner - AGAINST

Keith Wilson - AGAINST