Scottish NHS Committee 31.5.2000
The committee agreed on the extension of the Scottish Executive Group (SEG) to include members from each geographical area, and a member from a community trust. This has proved necessary because of the increasing amount of work they have to deal with. Consultation on the reports from the Partnership Information Network (PIN) guidelines groups will take place in June. The reports will cover such topics as the management of employee dissatisfaction (grievance) and harassment. Senior reps have been sent information on a new set of groups being set up to look at the implementation of the lifelong learning strategy Learning Together. nominations are sought for the various groups. This opened a considerable discussion on the problems of facilities time to attend such meetings. It was emphasised that it is a management responsibility to ensure that staff reps are able to attend meetings. In North Glasgow Trust, MSF senior reps have obtained 1.5wte secured time for union duties. South Glasgow has told senior reps that they have two days a week to carry out union duties, but has not funded this. The guideline development group looking at facilities is due to produce a draft report for the meeting of the Scottish Partnership Forum (SPF) on June 13th, and it is envisioned that the report will be published by the end of June. It does not use the term "time-off" as it gives the wrong impression. Instead it makes it clear that reps are still working, albeit in a different capacity. It will impose obligations on both management and unions to sort out partnership locally. There will be three months for comments to be made on the report.
The letter on the increased £60m funding from the Scottish Executive gave criteria for how it should be spent. One of those criteria under which Trusts can bid for the money is staff issues. It should be suggested that trusts bid for money to fund partnership and implementation of the lifelong learning and occupational health strategies. As partnership is one of the governments aims, it should be part of any bids. There also needs to be some sort of succession planning for staff reps, and this is a management responsibility rather than a union one. All members having difficulties with facilities availability should contact Committee Secretary Roddy Kelly with details of their requirements.
National Secretary Roger Kline: Pay: Roger gave a potted history of the 1999 pay round, the three year deal and the governments ultimatum. A brief synopsis of the meeting with Alan Milburn, Health Minister was quite enlightening. Refusal to agree to the 3 year deal would have effectively meant derecognition of MSF for anything other than pay, terms and conditions matters. It has since become clear that similar treatment has been given to the NHS Federation and the BMA. Given that it is a delicate time for MSF since there are decisions pending on issues such as Pay Review Body (PRB) status and market testing, and that an answer was required within a week, when the situation was discussed at the Health Service Conference and with the Negotiating Committee, it was decided that there was no option but to accept the deal. It was decided that it was the lesser of two evils. It had also been made clear that, agreement or not, the Advance Letter was going to be issued by the Department of Health.
Two questions remain over this issue -

1. Where does this leave MSF on the previously submitted pay claims? They are still on the table. There have been no changes in the various recruitment and retention problems. Recently, there were 4 pages and a cover story in the Health service Journal on pathology services going down the tubes.
   
2. How does this relate to Agenda For Change (AFC) and MSFs relationship with the government? There is now an extremely jaundiced view of partnership south of the border. July 21st is the date for finalising negotiations on AFC.

The committee asked why there had been no press release about the governments bullying tactics. Roger replied that he had spoken to some parts of the press e.g. Health Service Journal and the Guardian, but hadn't quite got round to a press release, probably because there is a reluctance to release a press statement about a defeat. MSFworks will also carry a shortened version of the circular.
In coming to a decision on the way forward, discussions had centred on whether this was the issue to fight over, given that MSF would be outvoted on the Whitley Council anyway by the other unions who had already decided to accept. The prospect of ballot papers going out to members at the same time as the Advance Letter was not one which was relished. On balance, the negotiators thought it was the right decision. However they will know for definite in three months time whether that is the case. When asked what would happen if the majority of MSF members were not included in the PRB, Roger answered that the Health Committee would see this as a "defining moment".
Discussions then moved on to the Job Evaluation Scheme part of AFC. If it does not provide for substantial changes in the hierarchy of jobs within the NHS, the likelihood is that MSF will decide that it is flawed, and want changes to it. If the AFC talks collapse then there will be some very difficult problems to be sorted out.
AEEU Merger: Conference voted in principle for a merger with 4 conditions. Three have been met and one condition has not. The NEC will meet on the 10th June to decide what to do. The AEEU have intimated that they will not wait around forever. A circular should be issued shortly after the meeting to inform members of the decision.
Agenda For Change: There are four main headings to AFC. The job evaluation scheme; increments and pay progression; terms and conditions; and pay uplift.

1. Job evaluation scheme - The draft factor design has been tested in 18 organisations for about 160 jobs. There will then be discussions on weighting of the different factors. An evaluation panel in Leeds, which includes a pharmacist, is looking at the results. This process is supposed to be complete by 21st July. The issue then will be about benchmarking of jobs, and how many decisions can be left to Trusts as opposed to being decided nationally. The rank order has also still to be decided.
   
2. Increments and pay progression - There has been no progress on this matter, and discussions are going round in circles. A third management paper has been taken off the table. MSF were trying to clarify exactly what the management paper meant. No links between pay and appraisals will be acceptable, and MSF is saying that there are two options. Keep the automatic increments, or link one or two of them to evidence of proper CPD during the year.
   
3. Terms and conditions - Here there are two levels of argument. Should they be set at a local or UK level? Equal pay claims would indicate that they must be set at a national level. Where should they be harmonised? The discussions have not yet started. Since doctors have been included, there are 903 sets of different terms and conditions within the NHS. MSF has members with high, medium, low and no set hours! Maternity and working time issues also need to be considered.
   
4. Pay uplift - At the moment, the AFC proposals have three pay spines. One of the Modernisation Project discussion groups in England is talking about merging the regulatory activities of the GMC, CPSM and UKCC. In that case, why have separate pay spines? All changes to the CPSM and the UKCC have been postponed until the outcome of these discussions is known. There is also the PRB status question, and all the associated side issues such as market testing/PFI etc. MSF is arguing that since physiotherapy helpers and footcare assistants are members of the PAMs PRB, there is a precedent for the inclusion of pharmacy technicians as well as pharmacists.

This is a whole package, and there has been a suggestion that if not enough progress is made on items 2 and 3, item 1, the job evaluation scheme, could be introduced before, and kept separate from, everything else. The new pay spines, pay uplift, terms and conditions and PRB status will all be implemented at the same time, but the job evaluation scheme will definitely be phased in. The next part of the picture is what will be introduced and when. By the end of July 2000, the draft document will be out for consultation. By mid-October, the views on the draft document will be known. There will also be the final decisions on who will be the early implementers, and discussions on the criteria for inclusion will take place. The MSF negotiators guide should also be issued around this time. Reps training days should have taken place in every region in September 2000, before every member of the NHS is balloted. This does mean that MSF votes may be swamped by other unions. By April 2001, it should start to be rolled out, in phases, over a period of 2-3 years. It has been suggested that Wales and Northern Ireland will start to roll out in 2003.
The Scottish Pay Reference and Implementation Group (SPRIG) consists of all the major trade unions, senior managers and members of the Management Executive (ME), and is an adhoc group, not linked to partnership. No decisions have yet been made, but the Scottish Parliament has executive control over what comes out of AFC. Scotland wants to wait until April 2002 before implementation; letting the Trusts down south make all the mistakes. It is felt that all trusts within Scotland will go at the same time, with no phasing. Several groups have been set up to ascertain what work needs to be done to get this done. There will probably be little room given for trusts to have local agreements. Local in this case is likely to be taken as Scotland. The dissemination of information in August / September is likely to be done on a joint basis, with joint seminars in every trust. The SEG is to discuss how to influence SPRIG at their next meeting. The BMA are aware of the discussions but are not taking part in them. This is surprising since doctors jobs will be among those evaluated. MSF has been discussing matters with the Society of Radiographers and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapist with a view to agreeing our response and increasing the weight of it.
Education and Training: Two national strategies have been launched by the SPF. Both put power into the staff sides by setting tasks for the Trusts which have to be signed off with joint agreements in these areas.
Volunteers are required for a short life working group to assess the best way forward on the issues involved. If you are interested please call me. Previous groups have met perhaps once or twice, with the rest of the communication by email. A facilitator is used to keep discussions going and ensure all options are considered. A meeting at the end of the process allows the report to be agreed by all members of the group.

Partnership
Argyll & Clyde Acute Hospitals have agreed the constitution of the Trust Partnership Forum. The North Glasgow Forum has now met, and the members will decide whether to sign the Partnership Agreement once the trial operational period has been completed.

Advice
I have given advice mainly on several matters. At least two trusts have requested advice on reapportioning the on-call allowance when vacancies occur on the rotas. I have agreed to become part of the group which will produce the MSF response to the Greater Glasgow Acute Strategy Review document.

GHP in Scotland Website
The Scottish GHP website is now up and running at www.ghpscot.org.uk . I would be grateful for any feedback on the content and/or suggestions for improvement. As previously stated, I do not intend to duplicate any of the information available on the national GHP site. The intention is to give a site with a Scottish flavour and relevant NHSiS information.

'ghp'
All further feedback I have had on the new journal has been favourable.

Group News
An audit of clinical services at the Vale of Leven Hospital has been carried out. They are now to use screening and care plan forms. Rhona Petrie would be grateful for any examples that colleagues use and could supply to her.

Colin Rodden
1 June 2000