The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7455 p671-673
9 June 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 90K, Acrobat Reader

• White Paper (5)
• The profession (3)
• Tablets within capsules (2)
• Technicians (2)
• Supervision
• The Society

Letters to the Editor

White Paper

Establishing a royal college — what is possible?

From Mr I. G. Simpson, FRPharmS

Raymond Dickinson (PJ, 26 May, p607) has given us the benefit of his experience as a former deputy secretary of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and pointed out that establishing a royal college is by no means an instant action. Some work which I have been doing recently demonstrates that the situation has not changed since Mr Dickinson was in office. The establishment of a royal college for pharmacy would be a three stage process: setting up a new organisation, either by merging existing organisations, or from scratch; obtaining a royal charter for the new organisation; and obtaining the right to use the title “Royal”.

Setting up a new organisation The ability of an organisation to merge with others is determined by the terms of its governing document. In the case of the Society, its Charter allows it “to co-operate with other bodies and authorities, to establish or incorporate subsidiary organisations, to acquire any undertaking, to assume any liability or obligation and to undertake or carry out any trusts or agencies”. It is not clear whether or not this allows it to merge with other organisations. Other organisations that are charities may not be able to merge with bodies that are not charities. For example, the College of Pharmacy Practice has received the following advice from the Charity Commission: “… it would not be possible for the College of Pharmacy Practice to merge with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society because the Society does not appear to be exclusively charitable. However, it may be possible for the Society to act as body corporate trustee of the College in the same way as it does for other charities.”

Obtaining a royal charter The Privy Council website gives the following information on obtaining a royal charter: “A royal charter is a way of incorporating a body, that is turning it from a collection of individuals into a single legal entity. Royal charters were at one time the only means of incorporating a body, but there are now other means (becoming a registered company, for example), so the grant of new charters is comparatively rare. New grants of royal charters are these days reserved for eminent professional bodies or charities which have a solid record of achievement and are financially sound. In the case of professional bodies they should represent a field of activity which is unique and not covered by other professional bodies. At least 75 per cent of the corporate members should be qualified to first degree level standard. Finally, both in the case of charities and professional bodies, incorporation by charter should be in the public interest.”

Obtaining the right to use the title “Royal” A guidance document, issued on request by the Ministry of Justice, states that permission to use the title “Royal” is a mark of royal favour granted by the Sovereign, acting on the advice of the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor of the Ministry of Justice. Permission to use the title “Royal” is rarely granted. This is borne out by the fact that, of the 190 organisations granted royal charters during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, only 19 can use the title “Royal”. The guidance states that it is unlikely that an application would be successful on the founding of an organisation. Furthermore, it implies that a new application has to be made if a body which has the title “Royal” merges with one which does not.

Therefore, in summary, the situation is as follows:

• The ability of pharmacy bodies to merge is determined by the Society’s Royal Charter and the governing documents of the other bodies concerned.

• In order to become a royal college, any new body would have to obtain both a royal charter and the right to use the title “Royal”. Neither of these would be granted until the body had been up and running for a number of years and was able to demonstrate a solid track record of achievement and financial probity.

• If the Society were to merge with a body that did not have the title “Royal”, it would have to reapply for permission to use the title, and this may or may not be granted.

Perhaps a pragmatic way forward would be for:

• The Society to retain its current Royal Charter and “Royal” title

• The College of Pharmacy Practice — and other established pharmacy organisations that are charities — to merge to become an academy of pharmacy practice, with the Society as a corporate trustee

• The existing Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences to move under the umbrella of the Society, with the Society as a corporate trustee

This arrangement might not fulfil Lord Hunt’s requirement for the royal college to be a new body (PJ, 19 May, p583), but it seems clear from the information outlined above that if a new body were formed, either from scratch or by merger of other bodies with the Society, it could be many years before the new body would be granted either a royal charter or the right to use the title “Royal”.

Ian G. Simpson
Chief Executive
College of Pharmacy Practice

The Council may not like it, but Lord Hunt is right

From Mr G. Hall, MRPharmS

I was intrigued to read your leading article, “Engage the silent majority” (PJ, 26 May, p596), in which you claim that Lord Hunt has achieved something that no one else has done in living memory: he has united the profession. Read on and the point is made that the “silent majority” has not spoken and needs to be asked. So is your claim perhaps misleading?

The truth is that Lord Hunt has managed to unite the pharmacy “establishment” (Officers and members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council) against what they are calling Government “interference” — hardly a uniting of the profession as you suggest. Most members might be happy with Lord Hunt’s sensible approach; The Journal just does not know.

This raises issues of the editorial policy currently being employed by The Journal. The profession has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a unified voice and it is critical that members get fair and balanced reporting of the issues. The Journal, I think, has been sensationalist rather than giving balanced views. For example at a recent meeting a comment was published that “pharmacists would rather sell their children than have any non-pharmacists involved in the college” (PJ, 5 May, p513).

The majority of letters on this subject have been from what I term the establishment. Can the editor assure members that their letters are being given equal importance as those from what appears to be an increasingly threatened and desperate group? Can the editor also assure us that content of letters is not vetted before publication by the President or other Officers of the Society?

I do not think there is an agenda: Government thinking is clear and it is that the Society will be a key facilitator but is only one voice out of the many that will need to create the vision for the body akin to a royal college. It would appear the Government is determined to prevent the Society from repeating the leadership failures of the past. We must not forget that had we not had such failures in leadership the profession as a whole would be stronger today. Can the Society therefore stop complaining about Lord Hunt and get on with uniting the profession through some genuine decision-sharing?

Graeme Hall
Leicester

Unelected Government officials must not determine our future

From Mr M. D. Williams, MRPharmS

The letter from Lord Hunt (PJ, 19 May, p583) is, as a branch representative rightly pointed out (PJ, 2 June, p652), “an intervention too far”. If pharmacists allow unelected Government officials to determine our professional future, then the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s assets will be lost to pharmacists forever. Should the Society not be transformed into a body akin to a royal college but dissolved or disbanded, then its assets are likely to be handed to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) or given to Government. While this would be good result for the Department of Health as it would gain our assets and not need to arrange for GPhC offices or publications, pharmacists would be left without a professional body, a disastrous result for us all.

What might happen when the vast majority of members realise that the assets are threatened? History shows us the fate of a previous Council, which did not include the words “promote the interests of pharmacists in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy” in a draft Charter. However, dissolution of the Society would result in the absence of a Council on which the electorate could vent its ire. Now is the time for members to give their backing to the Council in its efforts to ensure that our Society transforms rather than disappears. When renegotiating the Charter, the real risk of the Government attempting to strip the Society’s assets was considered. As a result changes were introduced that ensured that members were given a rightful say in any changes to the Society’s chartered objects and powers, and we should support the President and Council in ensuring our right to self-determination is observed.

The staff of the Society have effectively been given notice of redundancy by Lord Hunt. If the Society is not evolving but disbanding, then most of the staff will not be required. This is poor treatment of the Society’s staff, whose future could be to apply for a GPhC job or look at a career change.

The debate about how the Society can evolve into a body akin to a royal college has already begun. It is vitally important that all members have the opportunity to voice their opinions and to give the Council a clear direction as to where and how such evolution will come about. If pharmacists want a strong body that can lead the profession and bring together the plethora of sectional organisations we currently have, and to give that body the authority to speak for pharmacists, then I believe we should rule out giving pharmacy technicians full membership. Rather we should offer them and other non-pharmacists involved with pharmacy associate membership, as envisaged in the Carter report (PJ, 19 May, p573). By contemplating full membership we allow a further threat to our professional body and its assets.

M. D. Williams
Solihull, West Midlands

Council should survey the members

From Mr B. Shooter, MRPharmS

Many busy community pharmacists’ contact with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is similar to their contact with other enforcement bodies. How different are Society inspectors’ visits from those of VAT or Inland Revenue officials?

We pay our fees and we polish our certificates. We are too busy to be able to make a decision as to the future of the Society without considerable help and advice.

I suggest that Council surveys us — the members — and then commissions consultants using the results of the survey as its brief to suggest options as to the future of the Society. The process must be thorough, comprehensive, open and transparent. I enjoy and I am proud of my profession and I want as much support as possible from the Society (yes, personally I think it should be the Society) to enable me and my successors to continue to be the guardians of our communities’ medicines.

Barry Shooter
Romford, Essex

Let the starting point be inclusion, not exclusion

From Dr C. A. Duggan, MRPharmS

It is a unique quality of pharmacy that it spans the discovery of drugs, the design of medicines, their prescription and administration, through to advising and educating patients and the public. The White Paper and subsequent report from Lord Carter have given us the opportunity to bring all these aspects together in a cohesive and inclusive body that plays a leading role for pharmaceutical science and practice. The UK Clinical Pharmacy Association sees no conflict between the principle of inclusiveness and the celebration of expertise, whether generalist or specialist. The challenge for pharmacy organisations, including the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, is to move forward from debate about how we arrived at the current position and to grasp the new opportunity in partnership.

The UKCPA finds much to commend in Alan Kershaw’s view of a “cabinet for all the talents “ (PJ, 2 June , p642) and that the starting point for this is not exclusion, but inclusion, which would extend to working with Government on both regulation and leadership at this important time. However we recognise, as did Lord Hunt in his letter (PJ, May 19, 583), that leadership of the pharmacy profession is primarily a matter that the profession itself needs to address.

Catherine Duggan
Chairman
UK Clinical Pharmacy Association

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (The profession)