From Mr I. M. W. Caldwell, FRPharmS
SIR,—It probably pleases you to know that other people, civil servants, administrators, finance officers, for example, read your Journal but that very fact will distress many of us who have had to fight over the years to have locum fees recognised as legitimate, reimbursable expenses for participation by pharmacists in the workings of Govermnent agencies, working groups, health boards and, to some extent, in directed professional training.
We were partly able to base our arguments on the fact that our professional body paid lip service to our contention by making an (albeit Mickey Mouse) allowance to Council members for the legal necessity to pay for a locum while the Council member was on duty during working hours. The fact that the allowance equated to between a quarter and a third of the real cost and the remainder had to be met from the member's own pocket was irrelevant - the principle was established.
The other readers I mentioned will now be delighted to know that there are Council members who appear not to understand the concept (PJ, February 12, pp251-3) and who fail to appreciate that this ill-informed report will have ramifications far beyond Lambeth. In spite of the assertions which you report as being made in the debate, currently locum expenses are being reimbursed on scales varying from token sums to verifiable payments of up to £156.
One contribution to this appalling debate appears to state that, although only one payment should be made, there are actually two jobs involved. Of course there are. One is the statutory and usually contractual requirement to be physically present at a pharmacy, and the other is the duty of an elected representative to the membership - two separate and distinct payments by any measure. The first is a fundamental, reimbursable expense which facilitates the possibility of the second, which is a taxable recognition of the not inconsiderable preparation and attendance time involved.
I conclude with the thought that this debate indicates there may be a case for some debates to be held in camera after all!
Ian Caldwell
Larkhall, South Lanarkshire