Jono

Whilst my letter was published, on 4 March I sent you a comment for an article you were penning containing views for and against to royal college proposals. This too does not appear to have seen the light of day. Please could you advise?

Some excellent arguments against the RPS becoming a royal college, from *checks notes* Paul Bennett, CEO of the @rpharms

The RPS remains unforthcoming with important details of its royal college proposal. There is some PR on its website. The draft charter and charity constitution would be among the most important documents, and yet no proposed drafts have been published to show the precise objectives and governance it is seeking, and this information has not otherwise been provided. It is doing roadshows apparently based on the same PR mentioned above - which fails in my view to give people sufficient information to know which questions are important to ask, what the effect on the individual and the profession is going to be, or to put forward a view which is as informed as it should be. If it is still working out the details, then why is it doing roadshows? It has already written to the charity commission and privy council for “informal approval” - what did it say to them? Link: rpharms.com/changeproposals#… #pharmacy #SpeakUp

This announcement has not been accompanied by the publication of a proposed charter, or by any indication that one will be published before the vote, including with sufficient time to consider it. Important details have been left out, or have not been addressed directly and expressly. This is in the context of a finding that the RPS’s governance structures are “opaque”. Questions arise including: 1. Would the organisation’s primary duty be to act in the interests of the public? If so, to what extent will this conflict with representing the interests of pharmacists, for example in relation to public sector pay, workload, and liability? Would the organisation have any duty at all to act in the interests of the profession, even if subordinate to the public interest? Further, wouldn’t a primary duty to act in the public interest mean that the RPS’s assets (property, staff etc.) would be being appropriated and put to use primarily for the public? Over time, since 1841, they have been accrued not least through the fee contributions, donations and work of professional members. Could the organisation continue to claim to be a body representing the profession, or even a “professional body” (save in the loose sense that it could act professionally, or was a body comprised in part of members of a profession)? 2. To the extent if any that the organisation represents the interests of “pharmacy”, this suggests that it would (or at least could) do so for a combination of the interests of pharmacy businesses, the pharmaceutical industry including manufacturers and wholesalers, employers, universities, other educational institutions and course providers, and various pharmacy staff member groups including those whose interests compete and conflict with those of pharmacists. Why would pharmacists vote for that? 3. Would the controlling governing body of trustees include lay representatives? How would they be appointed? What is to prevent the installation of stooges with various vested interests? Would it be conditional on a vote by pharmacist members, would all pharmacy staff vote, or would there be no vote at all? How would people know what had gone on behind the scenes to select these people? Would it mean that pharmacists would no longer have control over the organisation’s decision making? 4. Would pharmacist members lose the ability to control future membership categories? Is this the reason pharmacy technician membership is not being discussed now - so that it can be forced through after the change to the charter has been made? 5. Under what governance mechanism did the RPS Assembly formally agree this position? There is no record of the decision having been made at its July meeting (see rpharms.com/about-us/who-we-…). What type of meeting was it, within the RPS governance framework? What *precisely* did the Assembly resolve to do - the explanations on the RPS website don’t show the document whose wording was agreed? Was it an agreement in principle? This is important because the Assembly has to ultimately resolve to do something specific before the membership votes on it - see Article 12 of the RPS’s Royal Charter - the Assembly’s resolution has to be “confirmed” my a membership vote. rpharms.com/Portals/0/RPS%20… If the Assembly has agreed on the wording of a proposed charter, why hasn’t the said charter been shared with members? If the Assembly has not agreed on a proposed charter, what exactly has it agreed? 6. Who cares about any of this? How many pharmacists care enough about the RPS or its future, to engage meaningfully with the proposal?