NHS staff will receive the 2.25% pay increase due as the final stage of
their three-year pay agreement from April 2010. The NHS Pay Review Body
has concluded that the conditions have not been met for it to seek a
remit to review the increase.
The pay deal was unusual in that the review body had made a
recommendation on a one-year increase, with the remaining two stages
being proposed by the Department of Health, NHS Employers, Unison and
the RCN (subscription required). The second year of the agreement increased pay
rates by 2.4% from April 2009. The final year increases rates by 2.25%
from April 2010, with those on the lowest pay points receiving a
flat-rate increase of £420. In addition, there are some changes to pay
bands 5 and 6.
The role outlined for the review body during the period of the agreement stated:
"The [NHS Pay Review Body] will continue to gather evidence throughout the period of this agreement. In the event that the [NHS Pay Review Body] receive and identify new evidence of a significant and material change in recruitment and retention and wider economic and labour market conditions, they may request a remit from the secretary of state to review the increases set out in this agreement for 2009/10 and/or 2010/11." The review body's decision was published on the Office of Manpower Economics website on 10 December 2009.
The review body received evidence from the parties to the agreement (government health departments and bodies representing employees and employers) as well as drawing on other sources of information, including IRS data on pay settlements. It concluded that, although there had clearly been "a significant and material change in wider economic and labour market conditions since the pay agreement was announced on 7 April 2008", the evidence did not point to "a significant and material change in recruitment and retention in the NHS".
It went on: "Our decision not to seek a remit does not mean, however, that we endorse the increase set out in the parties' agreement. We were not consulted about the pay increase for April 2010 (or that in 2009): we were invited to consider whether the criteria for review had been met.
"Nor were we consulted about the review mechanism itself. It was, in our view, unduly rigid. It set high hurdles for any review and provided very limited discretion for us to consider whether a review is necessary, even in the sharply changed economic circumstances that currently exist."
In case that left any doubt that the review body was not happy with the task it had been asked to undertake, it concluded: ". . . we would request that in future, if parties wish to allocate the review body a role under their agreements, they consult the review body at an appropriate time as to the nature of that role."
The role outlined for the review body during the period of the agreement stated:
"The [NHS Pay Review Body] will continue to gather evidence throughout the period of this agreement. In the event that the [NHS Pay Review Body] receive and identify new evidence of a significant and material change in recruitment and retention and wider economic and labour market conditions, they may request a remit from the secretary of state to review the increases set out in this agreement for 2009/10 and/or 2010/11." The review body's decision was published on the Office of Manpower Economics website on 10 December 2009.
The review body received evidence from the parties to the agreement (government health departments and bodies representing employees and employers) as well as drawing on other sources of information, including IRS data on pay settlements. It concluded that, although there had clearly been "a significant and material change in wider economic and labour market conditions since the pay agreement was announced on 7 April 2008", the evidence did not point to "a significant and material change in recruitment and retention in the NHS".
It went on: "Our decision not to seek a remit does not mean, however, that we endorse the increase set out in the parties' agreement. We were not consulted about the pay increase for April 2010 (or that in 2009): we were invited to consider whether the criteria for review had been met.
"Nor were we consulted about the review mechanism itself. It was, in our view, unduly rigid. It set high hurdles for any review and provided very limited discretion for us to consider whether a review is necessary, even in the sharply changed economic circumstances that currently exist."
In case that left any doubt that the review body was not happy with the task it had been asked to undertake, it concluded: ". . . we would request that in future, if parties wish to allocate the review body a role under their agreements, they consult the review body at an appropriate time as to the nature of that role."
|
| Permalink | Email this |
