NHS unions say plans for 2% pay rise next year could mean more strikes

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com 

NHS strikes could continue for many months amid anger at UK government plans to raise staff salaries by only 2% next year, which health unions have condemned as more “real-terms pay cut misery”.

Ministers have asked the NHS pay review body to cap the increase in frontline health workers’ pay to 2% in 2023-24 to help the government achieve its ambition to curb soaring inflation.

But the attempt by the health secretary, Steve Barclay, to cap the annual salary rise at such a low level could lead to the NHS facing prolonged industrial action, health service bosses are warning. The 2% is barely a third of the estimate by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) that inflation as measured by the CPI index will average 5.5% during 2023-24.

The 2% plan comes against a background of widespread strikes across the NHS in protest at the government’s decision to give the bulk of personnel a rise of £1,400 – or about 4% – for 2022-23. In England, ambulance staff will walk out again on 11 and 23 January, while nurses are due to refuse to work on 18 and 19 January, disrupting a wide range of services including planned surgery and outpatient appointments.

On 16 November, Barclay wrote to the NHS pay review body, which advises ministers what size of uplift staff apart from doctors and dentists should receive, giving them their remit for the 2023-24 settlement. While it did not specify the 2% figure, the NHS Confederation hospitals body, the Health Foundation thinktank and several health unions all say that the fact that NHS England’s budget for 2023-24 has already been set means that is the sum Barclay is keen to see awarded, with a 1% contingency potentially making it a 3% rise. Either sum is likely to provoke further unrest among NHS staff.

Pat Cullen, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), said: “Our dispute is about the NHS pay award for 2022-23, and we are deciding how to engage in discussions about the 2023-24 award. Ministers need to resolve our dispute with them over this year’s award before they move on to next year’s.”

But in a direct response to the mooted 2% rise, she added: “Inflicting a decade of real-terms pay cut misery on nursing should be more than enough without considering going down that road again next year.”

Matthew Taylor, the NHS Confederation’s chief executive, urged Barclay not to try to impose such a small, below-inflation increase for a second year running.

“The trade unions are calling for a pay rise for NHS staff that is above current levels of inflation, which 2% to 3% would not deliver. If the government wants to avoid the prospect of prolonged industrial action this year, it must be prepared to negotiate on pay and both sides must be willing to compromise,” Taylor said.

Anita Charlesworth, the director of research at the Health Foundation, said: “The NHS’s budget for next year was set by the government on the basis that health service staff would receive a 2% uplift in the coming pay round. This would be less than half forecast inflation and below the [OBR’s] official forecast for earnings growth across the economy, which is 3.5%.”

A 2% award would risk exacerbating the NHS’s deepening staffing crisis, she added. “The result would be that NHS workers would face a further cut in real earnings. At a time of rising vacancies, it would mean NHS wages falling further behind other sectors, with risks to recruitment and retention.”

In his letter to Philippa Hird, the chair of the NHS pay review body, Barclay reminded her that “the NHS budget has already been set until 2024 to 2025”.

He said: “Pay awards must strike a careful balance – recognising the vital importance of public-sector workers while delivering value for the taxpayer, considering private-sector pay levels, not increasing the country’s debt further, and being careful not to drive prices even higher in the future.”

And in advice that underpins the likely 2% offer, the health secretary added: “In the current economic context, it is particularly important that you also have regard to the government’s inflation target when forming recommendations.”

NHS England cannot easily increase the 2%. It is under pressure to use its budget to tackle the 7.2 million-strong backlog of people awaiting hospital care, and the intense strain the entire service is under. That, allied to the fact that “NHS spending is planned to increase by a historically low level next year”, means that it has “little or no headroom to fund additional pay costs [beyond the 2%], with the government holding a potential contingency for a further 1% increase”, Charlesworth said.

An official at the GMB union said: “The Department [of Health and Social Care] has already sent its remit to the pay review body for next year and budgeted for a 2.1% pay increase. This is about a third of forecast inflation in 2023. The fundamental issue in the dispute is that NHS pay settlements have continuously been too low.”

However, Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, have ruled out increasing this year’s £1,400 offer because they are keen to demonstrate restraint over public-sector pay to help the Conservatives regain a reputation for economic competence.

Hunt has ruled out a one-off extra payment to nurses to try to end the government’s increasingly bitter standoff with the RCN, even though such a move is popular with voters.

The Department of Health and Social Care said it had not yet decided what pay rise for NHS staff for 2023-24 it could afford. “The government hugely values and appreciates NHS staff and we have committed to give NHS workers a pay rise, asking the independent pay review bodies for recommendations on pay for staff in scope,” a DHSC spokesperson said.

“This follows the acceptance of last year’s recommendations in full, which saw the lowest earners in the NHS receive a 9.3% pay rise.

“We will consider the independent pay review bodies reports carefully when we receive them. The government has not yet set out the position on affordability for 2023/24.”

Britain’s bosses who will earn more in four days than average worker takes home in an entire YEAR

The widening gulf means the typical chief executive at a FTSE 100 company is paid more than 100 times the average worker’s salary – with many pocketing far more.

Last year it took until 9am on the fourth working day of the year for a FTSE 100 boss to earn more on an hourly basis than a UK worker’s annual salary, based on median remuneration figures for both groups. 

This year the dubious milestone will be passed much earlier – at about lunchtime on the third working day of the year, January 5…

..It also deals a blow to attempts by former PM Theresa May to tame ‘fat cat’ pay by forcing companies to disclose more information about their pay ratios.

In 2017, she described the behaviour of some company bosses as ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism’ in an article for The Mail on Sunday. 

She launched a public register – commonly now referred to as a ‘blacklist’ of egregious executive excess – when a significant number of shareholders complain boardroom pay is too high.

Details of the widening pay gap are contained in a report to be published this week by the High Pay Centre, a think-tank that campaigns for a fairer deal for staff – and more moderation from bosses. It found that after a brief pause during the pandemic, the gap between chief executive and average worker pay is on the rise again…

www.dailymail.co.uk (Extract)

From a Correspondent:

The word ‘democracy’ is derived from the Greek word ‘demokratia’, meaning ‘rule by the people.’ It’s made up of the two roots ‘demos’, meaning ‘the people,’ and ‘kratos’, meaning ‘power’ – but in the 2020s do the people have significant, appreciable power and (although the people’s voices are definitely heard – are their views actually listened to by both national and local politicians?

Recently, the Clyst St Mary Facebook page has included insistent reminders to the local people to share their views on a second East Devon new town planned nearby and to broadly get involved and make their voices heard to East Devon District Council (EDDC), who are requesting the people’s perspectives on planning development for the new Draft East Devon Local Development Plan, now being prepared by EDDC Planners.

. . . . But why is it necessary to chivvy and badger the local community to make their representations . . . . are many people apathetic and indifferent? (Yes – there is definitely ‘a couldn’t-care-less-attitude from some!). . . Do some really find the whole planning process so incomprehensible that they don’t wish to look moronic in public, when their views are published online? (Again, yes – the planning process is similar to ‘wading through treacle’, being difficult to comprehend and negotiate)!

However, perhaps there is another reason why the local public do not wish to participate in this round of public consultations on the East Devon Local Development Plan? Perhaps the masses in this particular village community feel that, having previously contributed to the current Local Development Plan 2013-2031, by meticulously detailing their wishes for the future of their neighbourhood (Clyst St Mary), agreeing Built-Up Area Boundaries, preparing and detailing design statements for what and where they would prefer development to occur – they now find themselves at the beginning of a New Year in 2023 with

(1) non-enforcement by EDDC of planning/environmental conditions imposed on the Oil Mill Lane Enfield Anaerobic Biodigester for the protection of the community, together with two further planning applications now pending to substantially increase the input and output threefold, with the increased odour, noise, pollution and traffic issues (which will certainly follow if planning approvals are granted, even if there are ‘conditions’ imposed!), when this community have had to tolerate these detrimental issues for over 8 years (and when a Planning Inspector has already dismissed an Appeal for the identical increases in tonnages at Enfield AD!);

(2) approval of plans for 38 homes on a valued green space (protected against development and specifically removed from the current EDDC Local Plan to 2031), but then endorsed by EDDC planners (for economic reasons) with no safe pedestrian links provided to date, (neither pavements nor lighting) to the nearby village amenities of the school, nursery, post office, shop, village hall, children’s play-park, and pub;

(3) approval of 40 sky-high, towering, four-storey flats overlooking existing homes and gardens (again with unsafe pedestrian access to village services);

(4) significant tree/hedgerow loss/extensive pruning of a treasured TPO protected mature woodland to accommodate 40 flats (with a recommendation by the Green Party planning representative that residents can purchase and plant trees themselves to compensate for the already significant loss of screening (when the Developers felled trees in the nesting season in March/April 2022) – but, oddly, there are inadequate planning conditions imposed on the Developers themselves to provide sufficient, increased tree planting (to mitigate the lack of screening caused by their previous felling) and also insufficient new tree replacement for sizeable tree loss in future from the development;

(5) a Reserved Matters planning application approved (by 6 votes to 5!) for 40 four-storey flats but with obvious, inadequate in-depth knowledge of the specifics contained in the original, outline approval, together with a lack of realisation and awareness that, as decision-makers, they could have opted to reduce the height and number of the 40 flats because the outline planning approval had not accepted either – although decision-makers should ideally remember the previous advice from their Development Manager at the time of the outline approval!

It appears that both East Devon’s professional planners and the elected representative decision-makers have ‘turned a deaf ear’ to those who live in this village, with a disregard for their views under the Localism Act, with multiple faux pas detrimentally affecting these people – who were consulted and had vigorously made their views known – but now find themselves being ‘gagged’ by local authority protocol, whereby professional planners and some politicians (who appear to display egoistic tendencies of ‘we know better than you – so your views don’t count

!’) have consistently ignored local people’s perspectives and communications to such an extent that documenting it fully in this arena is unfeasible!

So Happy New Year 2023 from an East Devon community who has been there, done that and got the T-shirt regarding planning development throughout the past eight years – our New Year message is to advise other communities to prepare for the worst but hope for the best – you are wished all the luck in the world (you will need it)!

PS – We are guessing that East Devon landowners and developers will be toasting their developmental successes this New Year and there is, no doubt, that their supernumerary views and perspectives on development will be arriving in droves to be added to this new East Devon Development Plan consultation process!

Whether the limited, public representation numbers expected will be deemed proportionately adequate to secure a legitimate planning consultation is, perhaps, questionable? Does a public consultation fail without a reasonable percentage of representations from the public if it only contains predominantly exponentially growing numbers from land owners and developers? . . . DOUBTFUL – it’s far more likely that our representatives will continue to do whatever they wish, with the public having no voice or recourse!

Hardly democratic – but hopefully not a shift towards totalitarianism – because for most of us – that would be a step too far in 2023!

A new law aiming to force government ministers to comply with their official code of ethics is to be debated in parliament.

What chance? – Owl

Lizzie Dearden www.independent.co.uk

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams is calling for a bill that would put the ministerial code, which governs standards of behaviour, honesty and accountability, on a statutory footing.

Her ten-minute rule bill, which allows backbench MPs to make their case for a new law in a short speech, is due to be debated on 10 January.

Ms Abrahams will call for codes of conduct for ministers, MPs, peers and councillors to be written into law in the same way as happens in Northern Ireland.

She told the PA news agency that putting the code onto a statutory footing would “take it out of a political arena”.

“I feel particularly strongly that politics is in a bad place, and that politics and politicians aren’t trusted,” Ms Abrahams added. “I think that’s dangerous for our democracy.

“I don’t think it’s just our fault, but I think we need to do things that are going to improve that position, not make it worse.”

The ministerial code currently has no legal basis and has proven difficult to enforce, with the government operating without an ethics adviser able to investigate breaches for six months.

Rishi Sunak recently appointed veteran banker and Historic England chairman Sir Laurie Magnus as his new independent adviser on ministers’ interests, but faced criticism for ignoring calls to enable him to start investigations without his permission.

Critics argue that the approach effectively undermines efforts to properly enforce the code, by leaving too much power in the prime minister’s hands.

There has been no investigation into Suella Braverman’s apparent breach of the ministerial code in October, when the home secretary sent a draft statement from her personal email to a backbench MP and Tory staffer.

Ms Braverman resigned from her post in Liz Truss’s government but was reinstated days later after Mr Sunak became prime minister.

Former ethics adviser Sir Alex Allan resigned in November 2020 after Boris Johnson kept then-home secretary Priti Patel in post despite his conclusion that she had broken the ministerial code by bullying civil servants.

His successor, Lord Christopher Geidt, quit in June after telling a parliamentary committee that Mr Johnson may have broken the ministerial code during the Partygate scandal.

He told MPs that he did not have the power to initiate an investigation into the former prime minister, because the “authority for the independent adviser flows from the prime minister in assisting the prime minister in the business of managing his own ministers”.

Mr Johnson cleared himself of breaking the ministerial code in a letter claiming that a Covid fine did not count as a criminal conviction, and he had corrected false statements to parliament on parties that violated restrictions.

The Independent has previously revealed numerous occasions where government ministers have failed to correct the record after making false statements in parliament – even though the code states that those who knowingly mislead parliament “will be expected to offer their resignation”.