The SoR has joined other healthcare unions in warning the Pay Review Body against overreach into areas of pay reform it is not qualified to work on.
Alongside other unions who submitted additional oral evidence to the NHS Pay Review Body (PRB) in February subsequent to written evidence in November and December, the SoR was questioned regarding its view on the PRB’s remit to assess and prioritise Agenda for Change (AfC) structure reforms.
On 11 November, SoR executive director for industrial strategy Dean Rogers shared how deeply concerned the SoR was over the PRB’s expanded remit to repair and alter AfC pay structures.
‘Gravely concerned’
Mr Rogers explained: “All unions and I think most NHS employers are gravely concerned about the PRB being asked to do a job they are neither well prepared or qualified to do. The PRB are at best qualified to survey pay structures.
“They are not qualified to renovate or redesign a pay structure, never mind one as complicated as AfC. Asking a surveyor to carry out any repair work is very odd. By tasking the PRB with picking a point to start and beginning to carry out the work that’s exactly what the government are doing.”
Unions told the PRB in oral evidence that the body should not accept this job, as they lack the resources to carry out “even partial repairs and renovation of AfC’s cracks safely”.
The coalition of unions emphasised the need for consensus on any AfC repair work, across employers and professional associations, in order for that work to be both welcomed and sustainable.
‘One fault line ran into another’
Mr Rogers continued: "[The PRB] complimented us on the comprehensive evidence we submitted and the coherent case we made for strategic, wide spread repair and re-enforcement of the AfC structures.
“It appeared to recognise how one fault line ran into and across another and seemed to acknowledge the opportunity afforded by a new government committed to a 10-year plan and parallel revision of the workforce plan. The problem is it has also been asked to go a lot further than in previous years. The SoR’s evidence pointed the PRB towards why this would be dangerous, potentially increasing the risk that the whole system collapses.”
While unsure whether the PRB had listened, Mr Rogers reflected it had appeared engaged, and had both read and taken on initial written evidence.
‘Listening and engaged’
The PRB was particularly interested in challenges for support workers, why pay awards for new professionals were failing to meet the career promises made to student recruits, continued problems with staffing levels, the impact of agency recruitment outsourcing, increase of bank workers, and delayed recruitment of vacancies over morale, retention and efficiency.
Mr Rogers added the body had also asked interesting questions about rising student numbers, apprenticeships and drivers behind growth in the private sector.
He concluded: “They were listening and engaged. So that is promising, but you can’t be sure. You’d hope the government giving them a remit that’s now below inflation will in itself be enough for them to not try and do anything that’s potentially damaging.
“Certainly every union was telling them to recommend an above inflation increase for everyone and there wouldn’t be any money from the government’s remit even for that. So hopefully, even if some of them are tempted they’ll decide they don’t have the money to even try. But we won’t know for sure until they publish their report – which is most likely to be around Easter with the government responding at some point in May.”
Read the full text of submitted evidence to the Pay Review Body by the SoR online here.
(Image: Dean Rogers)