The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7245 p558
19 April 2003

Society summary

The draft new Royal Charter — your questions answered

Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council member Helen Remington addresses recent concerns about reform and the process of seeking a new Royal Charter

Does reform not mean that representation will be put on the back burner? Not at all. There is no reason why this work should not continue, or even increase. The Society's representational work is essential to help fulfil both its professional and regulatory responsibilities. The Society means to retain — and improve — its ability to promote the profession's contribution to health and to make representations to Government and others on issues across its remit in the interests of both public and profession. This includes, when necessary, opposing Government policy.

Representation does not, however, mean negotiation. That is the role of other bodies in pharmacy.

Will the new Charter cause the balance of the Society's activities to shift? There is no reason why having a new charter should cause the balance of the Society's activities to shift. Just as now, the future Council will shape and prioritise activities to support the changing needs of the public and of pharmacists across the profession.

The Charter is a means of protecting the focus we currently have on professional issues. Without a Charter, we would have less clarity about our reasons for engaging so thoroughly with the extensive professional issues we currently address. The Government has recognised that the professional underpinning of regulation is essential to reflect constantly the best of practice. An old Charter that did not achieve this would tail behind Government, rather than retain a leadership position for the Society.

Why has the Council agreed to increase the proportion of non-pharmacist members of the Council? Will that not just undermine the Council's ability to maintain the honour and safeguard the profession of pharmacy? The Society can only benefit from increased lay input. It will help us maintain and enhance public confidence in our profession — creating a rewarding future for pharmacy.

However, if we do not get this right, the Government will impose lay membership on us as it sees fit. Government has clearly stated that it expects the Society to come forward with proposals for securing an increase in lay membership similar to that being achieved for other health professions' regulatory bodies. The Council's proposal for the proportion of lay membership (34.5 per cent) is lower than, or the same as, that agreed for other bodies (34.5 per cent to 48 per cent). Indeed, we do not know yet if our own proposals have gone far enough to satisfy Ministers.

What are the implications of the Society's proposal to seek charitable status? What might the impact on the Society and the membership be? The impact would be entirely beneficial. Expert opinion has indicated that the Society already operates to many of the standards expected of a registered charity. Charitable status also demands high standards of transparency, which should provide added reassurance to members.

Regardless of the issue of charitable status, there is a compelling argument for separating publishing activities to provide a more suitable environment and management framework for future growth. However, the Council has stressed that the Society must have full ownership of the proposed publishing company. If the Society were a charity the publishing company profits would be capable of being transferred, free of tax, to the Society as gift aid. Therefore, the Society would continue to benefit from future profits and, indeed, would derive greater benefit from them than is currently the case.

The Society would continue to be able to protect the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy, as it does now. The Society, as a chartered body, cannot act contrary to the public interest. A move to charitable status would not change what has long been the case.

Will reform change the ownership of the Society's assets in any way? The proposals for reform make no change to the ownership of the assets, which belong to the Society as a corporate body, independent of the Government of the day.