Steve Churton, FRPharmS
RPS President (2008-10)
"This vote isn’t just about RPS, it’s about the future wellbeing of the profession."
Why are you supporting RPS’ proposals for change and royal college ambition?
I’ve been wanting to see the establishment of a royal college for a long time.
The last time the Society had a major reinvention was 2010 when we split from the regulator. At the time we talked about whether we should form a royal college – so for me this feels like it’s been a long time coming!
Right now we’re at a pivotal moment for the profession. Because the landscape is changing so fast, and opportunities opening for pharmacists so quickly, we need to make sure there is strong leadership for the whole profession, and a royal college enables this.
You’ve been around the governance of RPS for a long time. What are your thoughts on the governance changes proposed?
A big change that is going to come is the creation of a charity with trustee board and senate. This is quite different from what people are used to. Generally, being a charity would be expected of a royal college (most royal colleges are charities) but more than that, it’s important to have some external scrutiny, which the Charity Commission, and the Scottish Charity Regulator, will provide.
The board will be a mix of professional and lay people. I’ve been a trustee on charity boards without being a professional in the cause that the charity is concerned with, and what that means is that I can bring an external viewpoint and challenge to conventional thinking and ways of doing things. Holding the organisation to account in that way is a good thing.
Some people might see this as another layer of bureaucracy that we don’t need, but I don’t view it that way. I see it as an enabler rather than a barrier.
By moving some responsibilities from the Senate to the trustee board, it allows the Senate to focus on issues of strategy, which is what it needs to focus on, and not have that breadth of responsibility for issues like financial probity where it isn’t expert.
What are your thoughts on the composition of the Senate?
I see the proposed composition as an improvement. Hitherto in the Assembly we have had a ‘proportional’ approach to seats for England, Wales and Scotland. I don’t believe there is a requirement or a benefit in having proportional representation in the Senate, because its job is to bring together expertise. The National Councils provide representation within each country and will be accountable for their national strategies. The Senate is a strategic level committee - aside from the trustee board, it is the highest-level strategic body in the organisation - it should be thinking about how it is going to support the profession and advocate for the profession going forward.
What do you think the changes will mean on the ground?
We’re talking in the abstract because we’re not there yet. But we know what royal colleges do - they lead professions in the public interest.
The overarching answer is that we are trying to create a natural and welcoming professional home for everybody in pharmacy – pharmacists, pharmaceutical scientists etc – with a sense of belonging. At the moment we’ve got a fragmented workforce, with lots of organisations fulfilling different roles for different parts of the profession. That is all valuable, and those functions are important for members of those different organisations, but we need to find a mechanism where we all, under one ‘umbrella’, have a representative body for the profession, which speaks for all the different parts of the profession.
A royal college will be able to draw on the best of leadership across the profession – from within RPS and from those partner organisations.
Major stakeholders - politicians, say, or NHS leadership - want to be able to speak with an organisation that has a mandate to represent the profession as a whole. That’s how it works for other medical professions, and we don’t want to be second-class citizens anymore. We want parity of esteem with other medical professions. The royal college helps us to achieve this. I believe this would be welcome across the profession.
What about the impacts for members themselves?
Having a royal college and being able to speak with one voice will drive clinical excellence into everything pharmacists do. Education is a good example: if we can bring together the best educators from across pharmacy to deliver the best education programmes, that has to be good for the professional and the patient.
It’s also good for employers. The NHS and major chains will recognise the benefits of clearer career paths that come through education and credentialing programmes, so there are mutual benefits for professionals and employers.
It’s also good for personal development. To build confidence and belief in yourself, you have to be able to associate with those that have gone before you. A royal college would help disseminate experience and best practice. At the moment, this opportunity to learn from others is not shared by everyone across the profession.
What is your message to other voters?
It’s important to vote - this is the largest democratic exercise the Society has held for 14 years, and it’s happening at a critical time. I believe people will support these changes, but it’s really important that they do so in numbers. I hope we will see lots of engagement with this process and people will make their voices heard. We need to give a strong mandate for the Royal College of Pharmacy to take the profession forward. This vote isn’t just about RPS, it’s about the future wellbeing of the profession.