Leading up to the vote, critics have argued that the pharmacy sector’s leadership body would no longer serve the interests of pharmacists if it were to become a Royal College.
Bennett believes that doubts have arisen as a result of a 'misunderstanding' of the role of a Royal College and pointed out that other healthcare professional leadership bodies most frequently are Royal Colleges.
“This is not about leaving members behind, it's not about leaving pharmacists behind. The proposals absolutely have our members at the very heart of the organisation,” he told Pharmacy Business.
“This is now the time for us to embrace the opportunity that many have been calling calling for for several years to assume our rightful place, as it were, amongst the other healthcare colleges and be proud of our profession and to do so in a way which resonates with the public.”
Paul Bennett responds to Royal College critics
Among those against the proposals is the Pharmacy Defence Association (PDA) which has told its members to vote 'no' as it believes that if the RPS becomes a charity, its principal objective would be to act in the public interest instead of its previous objective to 'safeguard, maintain the honour, and promote the interests of pharmacists'.
Another critic, former RPS president, Martin Astbury, has argued that a Royal College would lead to 'unintended disastrous consequences'. He echoed the PDA’s sentiment that it would lead to a shift from representing the interests of pharmacists to representing the public interest.
Astbury revealed he would resign from the English Pharmacy Board if the proposals go through.
A Royal College would be beneficial to both pharmacists and patients, said BennettPic credit: iStock
Bennett responded by saying: “I find it a real struggle to see the argument that others are trying to put forward – it’s actually somewhat of a nonsense argument.
“We all go into this profession to do good for patients and the public. This is not in some way moving forward, blind to what pharmacists as individual professionals can do to contribute to patient safety, benefit of public and patient good - they are so closely intertwined.
“These arguments are based on misinformation and not looking at what is happening, the respect that the profession has from the public and the work that pharmacy can do to enhance that. And it's through the vehicle of a Royal College we think we can do that even more so.”
Bennett described the vote as a 'historic' moment for pharmacy and would lead its model of governance change if the proposals are supported by two-thirds of its members.
“These proposals have been made by our governing body the RPS assembly in order to modernise the organisation and to make us fit for the future as a professional leadership body in response to the very many changes that we foresee in the pharmacy landscape.”
RPS members urged to make their votes count
Bennett revealed that the proposals have received the backing of the UK Pharmacy Professional Leadership Advisory Board (UKPPLAB).
Setup last April on the back of the UK Commission on Pharmacy Professional Leadership’s report, the UKPPLAB’s remit is to foster greater collaboration among different leadership organisations in the sector and create a sustainable model going forward for pharmacy professional leadership.
“The UKPPLPAB have said that the Royal College would catalyse collaboration across pharmacy, professional leadership, leadership and strengthen the voice of pharmacy and that the outcome of this vote matters to all professionals working in pharmacy and to the whole pharmacy team,” said Bennett.
“Greater unity would ultimately deliver the stronger professional leadership, voice recognition, representation and strategic direction that that they believe is needed and ultimately to bring an end to division and fragmentation.”
The associations argued that withholding this analysis conceals the true extent of the sector’s financial plight from contractors and parliamentarians.
“We believe publishing this analysis now will help Ministers, the NHS and pharmacies chart a way to securing the stable and sustainable pharmacy network that our patients so desperately need,” they wrote.
IPA Chief Executive, Leyla Hannbeck, emphasised that the Independent Economic Review by Frontier Economics was commissioned to show “the true financial state of community pharmacy in England.”
“The Government officials now know the full picture of debt and suffering that years of underfunding and poor policies have imposed on these caring professionals,” she said, warning that the sector faces “collapse and ruin” as that debt is predicted to escalate.
She urged NHSE to reveal the truth by publishing the review’s findings, and staying true to the government’s promises to “stop this culling for pharmacy and patients alike.”
NPA Chair Nick Kaye echoed these concerns, stating that the analysis would expose “the true and devastating extent to which funding for community pharmacy falls short.”
“The hundreds of pharmacy owners signing the open letter agree with us that pharmacies, patients and the public’s representatives in parliament should be allowed to see this vital information without further delay.
“There is no justification for the public to be kept in the dark on an issue of such national significance,” he added.
Kaye highlighted millions of people rely on a sustainable pharmacy network for life-saving medication and convenient clinical care, and that “they should not be denied the full facts of this dire situation.”
“Ultimately, the aim is to ensure that pharmacies are protected in the interests of patients, and that we move forward with Wes Streeting’s vision of a health system with care focused in the community.
“To do that everyone needs to be honest about the scale of the problem we face so we can solve it together,” he added.
The associations insisted that there is “no justification” for delaying publication of this report, whether or not consultations on funding are under way.
The signatures were collected in just five days, between 5 and 10 March.
Read the joint letter here...
