| · IPF
· GHP (2)
· BPC
· Medicines use reviews
· Drug classification
· Alternative therapies
· Controlled drugs
· North East London LPC (3)
· The Society
· Pharmacists in the media
Letters to the Editor
|
British Pharmaceutical Conference
Comments on exclusion and cost
From Mr F. Powrie, MRPharmS
The recent British Pharmaceutical Conference was attended by the great
and the good, and probably some of the not so good as well, and has been
well reported in The Pharmaceutical Journal. Donald
Wood’s letter
(PJ, 22 October, p513) appertains to the conference and has two points,
which require comment.
First Mr Wood felt excluded: “I did not feel particularly welcome.
It seemed like a club.” As a community pharmacist Mr Wood should
know that it is himself who must often make the first approach. Did he
speak to them? Did he introduce himself? They will not speak to you unless
you speak to them.
Secondly, and much more important in my opinion, are his comments regarding
the cost and funding of his attendance at conference. There is a vast difference
in conference costs depending on whether you are an employee or self-employed.
The standard full attendance fee was £700 including VAT and the daily
fee £235 including VAT.
Assuming a tax payment of 40 per cent, an employee or self-funded attendee
must earn £1,166 gross to obtain a net of £700 to pay his conference
fee. If you are self-employed or sponsored then that £700 is an allowable
expense and will be set against tax. The £700 fee is deducted from
gross profit and then tax is paid and the VAT probably reclaimed as well.
So, for the self-employed or company, the cost of the conference is considerably
less than that of a self- funded attendee. The same argument can be applied
to the associated social events, hotel accommodation and travel expenses.
In 1999 I attended the Australian Pharmacy Conference in Melbourne and
then the Australian Pharmacy Guild and Institute of Pharmacy Management
Conference in Coolangatta, Queensland. I was surprised by the large number
of young pharmacists attending both conferences, probably because, whether
they are employees or self-employed, all are able to set educational expenses
against tax. All pharmacists are treated the same. Why is there this gross
discrimination between pharmacists in the UK simply because of their tax
status?
The PJ has printed that this is the best-attended BPC ever, some 1,300
attendees. It would be interesting to know how many were self-funded and
how many sponsored. The advantages of conferences are many, apart from
gaining knowledge and the exchange of ideas at the lectures. The networking
and chatter in the tea rooms and bars afterwards adds to the gain obtained
from attending. If Parliament is not to change the tax status then companies
must think of sponsoring employees more frequently (not just the great
and the good) so that the company can also gain from a more enlightened
employee. But why the discrimination?
Forbes Powrie
Ipswich, Suffolk
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal