GHP executive committee has voted to adopt a position of neutrality on the proposal for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to seek Royal College status. This is a divisive issue with wide-ranging views and implications. 

Background
Following the Pharmacy Professional Leadership commission, led by the four Chief Pharmaceutical Officers, a Pharmacy Professional Leadership Advisory Board (PPLAB) was established. One of the recommendations PPLAB made for consideration was for the establishment of a Royal College. An RPS-commissioned review of internal governance in 2023/2024 has made recommendations to change existing structures.

Where we are now
Following a nationwide series of roadshows, the RPS has made it clear that senior leadership and most RPS board members support the proposal for change. Various viewpoints on this have been outlined by numerous commentators.

In January 2025 we invited the RPS CEO and President to our council meeting to discuss further. The summary of discussion is available to read. GHP council members were pleased that RPS came to answer a series of questions on the proposal. Some answers were reassuring and a valid case for change was heard, although some answers did not provide the necessary depth and detail that would have allayed concerns.

Opportunities:

• A unified leadership body would seek to consolidate currently fragmented pharmacy leadership
• There is a single nexus point for pharmacy liaison and communication with incumbent governments
• Potential to strengthen pharmacy voice
• In line with PPLAB and RPS Governance and Constitution review recommendations.

Challenges:

• Ownership of pharmacist and pharmaceutical scientist member-contributed assets would be transferred to an organisation governed, in part, by non-pharmacists
• The overarching purpose of such a Royal College (as a charity) would move to work for the interests of the public rather than pharmacists, a subtle but key change which may become pertinent in the fullness of time
• There is an absence of detailed information regarding specific implications of certain aspects of such a move
• Non-RPS members will be affected by a “yes” vote outcome
• Credentialing and career progression linkage has not been comprehensively articulated, nor has a direct link been made to existing job evaluation schemes such as Agenda for Change
• Should credentialing become linked to career progression, the cost of assessment and re-assessment is likely to fall to pharmacists and other members of the workforce, with negative financial impact.

Conclusion
The GHP recognises the RPS and PPLAB ongoing review of pharmacy professional leadership. Questions remain about the delivery and detail of these changes. The GHP recommends that all RPS members read a range of views and vote on the proposal. The vote will be held between 13^th March – 24^th March 2025.

The GHP recognises the need to have constructive dialogue with both RPS and PPLAB to support the interests of our members going forward.

Contact: ghp@unitetheunion.org