From Mr B. P. Curwain, MRPharmS
SIR,—The current debate about expenses for the Society's Council members is timely and interesting (PJ, February 12, p251). I recently saw the papers provided to potential candidates for election to the Council and noted that the payment towards locum expenses was £72 per day. This was in payment "towards expenses incurred directly by any member as a result of the employment of a locum pharmacist in the premises in which the member normally works as the sole pharmacist". Why such partial payment? At current rates, this would only cover four to five hours of locum time - hardly enough time to get to Lambeth and back, let alone attend a meeting.
The debate urgently needs widening. Why on earth should payment only be for a locum pharmacist in a one-pharmacist pharmacy? In the practice of pharmacy, matters have moved on and the representation on the Council of rapidly growing branches of the profession is now imperative. There are now upwards of 500 pharmacists working with primary care groups and in general medical practitioners' practices, plus more in health authorities. A community locum, keeping days free to attend Council meetings, would be unable to recoup earnings lost while on Council business.
If a PCG pharmacist were to stand for election to the Council, the workload in primary care is such that more pharmacist time would have to be purchased to cover the time spent in the Society's and the profession's service. Thus locum cover would be required. A way that this could be arranged is for a realistic allowance to be paid to Council members for time spent on Council business away from their place of work, say, £140 per day, taxable. The member concerned would be required to provide proof of having taken unpaid leave, and hence would forgo their day's salary from the employer. The employing authority (normally the National Health Service) would then be able to use the money saved to pay another primary care pharmacist to cover for the absent employee.
I do hope that concerns such as these will be properly taken into account when the Council concludes its debate on the subject. I note from The Journal that all expenses are now paid against proof of having spent the money claimed. This is entirely proper and necessary in any public institution where financial rectitude must not only exist but be seen to exist.
Brian Curwain
Christchurch, Dorset