The various strands to the process known as "Agenda for Change" are - Job Evaluation Working Party - JEWP Terms and Conditions of Service Working Group Central Negotiating Group - CNG Pay Reference Group Knowledge & Skills Framework Joint Secretariat Group - JSG Career and Pay Progression Group - C&PPG Implementation Group Job Evaluation Working Party - Tina MacKay, Bruce Sanderson & Barrie Brown.
NB: It was recently agreed that in order that all JWEP meetings could be adequately covered, Barrie Brown would be added to the team of officers responsible for this part of the work. The job evaluation scheme is the main plank on which rests "Agenda for Change". This scheme will determine a rank order of jobs in the NHS, placing all staff on one of three pay spines. The three pay spines are to be i) doctors and dentists, ii) nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine and iii) everyone else! The scheme aims to ensure that any new pay system is fair, reflects the work undertaken and provides equal pay for work of equal value. Once the questionnaire and factor plan had been designed, negotiated and agreed there came the task of benchmarking 500 NHS jobs (phased). Any jobs not evaluated in phase 1 are to be evaluated in phase 2. Less common jobs will be evaluated at a local level at a later stage. It is the intention that the new pay system can be created out of a survey of 500 jobs and these jobs are being evaluated under phase 1 which will be finished by the end of July. MSF has put forward extra jobs for benchmarking as the original list did not fully represent MSF jobs. Extra jobs put forward include MLSOs, GPs, chaplains and others. It should be noted that there is no guarantee that these jobs will be benchmarked. It should also be noted that the top of the scale, i.e. consultants, and the bottom of the scale, i.e. assistants and trainees remain untested and will be the last to be benchmarked. MSF concerns are that: - there should be a representative sample of jobs benchmarked. - following the establishment of the new structure, we need to ensure that MSF members' jobs are appropriately benchmarked. - it is yet to be decided which assistants' jobs will be benchmarked. These jobs will fall into the second tranche of jobs to be benchmarked in September. This initial benchmarking exercise has highlighted the necessity for certain changes to the factor plan. Problems highlighted included - Top levels of knowledge did not seem to be working well leading to inconsistency. - Freedom to act had presented problems with evaluating nursing posts. Further guidance would be helpful on the interaction between protocols and initiative. This should include an assessment of where job holders are required to carry bleeps. - Clustering at level 5 was occurring meaning that very heavy physical effort was being relatively undervalued. An extra level or the re-wording or current levels could be required. - Mental effort was being evaluated correctly but on the basis of best fit rather than compliance with the level definitions and re-wording could be required. - There is a question about the transmission of patient information being generally complex rather than highly complex. This needs clarification. The criteria for the second tranche of jobs should be - those significant groups that were covered by the first tranche but where jobs were not provided, trainee posts, small but significant groups with similar jobs and jobs that will give further credibility to the exercise such as senior management posts. Nursing posts should include jobs in learning disabilities, theatres, A&E and primary care. There will be an opportunity to appeal where any job does not fit a benchmarked post. It is thought that locally analysed posts could lead to national inconsistency. The July meeting will look at issues raised at Joint Secretariat Group meetings and also develop protocols around implementation. JEWP will also need to equality proof, including checking the process against the original checklist, and timetable in the statistical analysis of the questionnaires. JEWP meetings will be every second Monday and Tuesday in the month, the next being on 9th/10th July. All outcomes from JEWP will be reported to the Central Negotiating Group and then put out for consultation with NHS staff. Implementation will begin in April 2002.
Terms and Conditions of Service Working Group - Patrick Canavan.
The initial brief for this group was to look at all terms and conditions existing in the NHS and decide what value these held, with a view to introducing a harmonised package of terms and conditions for all staff. This would include simplification of the NHS pay scheme that would supersede out of date allowances, offering a fixed system of enhancements that would allow higher regular pay to benefit recruitment, and a new approach that would demonstrate more trust in staff to act in a professional manner. There needs to be agreement on the average period of time over which the protected level of regular pay will be assessed, and for how long staff moving onto the new pay spine will have their pay fully protected. Staff side have put in counter proposals which are to be discussed. It is worth noting that Scotland have given protection for life to employees. It is proposed that staff whose conditioned hours are increased under the new agreement will have their existing conditioned hours protected for 48 months, and that staff members whose leave entitlement is reduced under the agreement will have existing entitlement protected for 48 months. Staff side are opposing these proposals, seeking a longer period of protection. Staff side have indicated that in addition to harmonising existing terms and conditions, a discussion on a number of outstanding equal opportunities issues, either referred from GWC or which are in need of review, needs to be included. Final decisions on terms and conditions cannot be taken until the job evaluation scheme has been thoroughly tried and tested. Recent meetings have addressed salary protection and unsocial hours. The Central Negotiating Group had agreed a process for moving towards agreement in principle across the range of negotiating areas and the unsocial hours paper has been written in this context. The process involved identifying areas of common ground and options for closing the gaps where the positions of the two sides differed. The main proposal in the unsocial hours paper offered three levels of supplement with two determined nationally and a capped local level which would include on-call and standby payments. On call payments are addressed in the negotiating document and staff side have put forward counter proposals. Assimilation of such payments will be largely at national level with the remainder to be agreed locally. Staff Side have commented on the underpinning principles that - it should be made clear that some but not all NHS services need to be provided during weekends and public holidays, - the amount of commitment and flexibility required from staff needs to be reasonable, - that the "negative references to controlling cost" strand that runs through the underpinning principles should instead seek to engender a more positive employer/employee relationship. It has been proposed that these principles will be achieved by proposals including - abolishing all existing allowances and enhancements for working on call, standby or flexible or unsocial hours, - paying overtime for all hours worked over conditioned hours where time off in lieu of additional hours is not agreed. (it had been proposed that a single rate of overtime be paid but staff side have suggested that if there is to be a single rate it needs to be higher and that a different rate needs to be paid at weekends), - defining levels of flexible and unsocial hours working which attract two standard levels of enhancement of pensionable salary determined nationally, (it had been proposed that there should be two levels but staff side doubt whether 2 national levels of enhancement will adequately capture the range of working patterns concerned). - setting out a framework for local employers and staff organisations to agree local systems for rewarding lower degrees of flexibility and unsocial hours working including on-call and standby, and - agreeing an approach to monitoring the agreed level of flexibility which respects the professionalism of NHS staff while allowing any problems to be dealt with promptly. It is further proposed that a level 1 national enhancement (percentage of salary) be paid to staff whose terms and conditions include a requirement to work fully flexibly (according to the definition shown below), and that a level 2 national enhancement (percentage of salary) be paid to staff whose terms and conditions include a requirement for fully flexible working, but which do include a requirement for significantly flexible working (according to the definition shown below). An enabling agreement will be made under which enhancements of up to (percentage of salary) may be agreed and paid locally for working patterns for staff who do not satisfy the criteria for either of the national enhancements proposed below. Definition for levels 1 and 2 of national enhancements - "1) Fully flexible working patterns are those which require different shifts to be worked on different days, and these shifts between them cover a 24 hour period and all seven days of the week. "2) Significantly flexible working patterns are those which require different shifts to be worked on different days, and the difference between the start time of the earliest shift and the end times of the latest shift exceeds 12 hours." The Staff Side have tabled counter proposals giving 4 levels of national enhancement.
Pay Reference Group and Central Negotiating Group - Barrie Brown.
Recent discussions have covered the implementation and roll out of the pay modernisation agreement. Proposals were made in April, informed by discussion at an implementation away-day held in February 2001. Implementation is to be underpinned by three principles - any implementation process must take account of both the need for staff to feel that they are being treated fairly and of equal pay for work of equal value legislation, - account must be taken of the capacity of the NHS to implement a radical change to the pay structure affecting a wide range of staff at a time of rapid change in the NHS. Both in terms of planning to develop that capacity and capability, and secondly the timing and pace of any change, - cost - it is recognised by all sides that any change to the pay system will incur significant costs, therefore account needs to be taken of this in terms of the planning and timing for implementation. The above principles are supported by two key elements - the concept of early implementers (i.e. a small group of health economies who will implement the pay system prior to others). Early implementers would act as a test bed for the new system to deal with any teething problems and ensure essential early evaluation of the progress on implementation and delivery of benefits. They should also help to improve the capability and capacity of the NHS to deliver pay modernisation through spreading lessons learnt during implementation. - early implementation to be followed by implementation for the rest of the NHS, on a phased basis in which all staff are treated equitably. The above requires a commitment to a comprehensive development programme to tackle the capacity and capability needs of staff and employers. The proposals on this are to be developed in a joint development group which has been established.
Career and Pay Progression Working Group - Mick Coyne.
Career and Pay Progression The aims are to replace spot salaries and pay bands with automatic annual increments, with a consistent new system of career and pay progression which builds in a stronger emphasis on life-long learning and development that facilitates career progression. Within the new system all staff will have the benefit of pay bands which allow a normal expectation of progression through the band provided they demonstrate over time the satisfactory application of the full range of knowledge and skills relevant to the job. It is also proposed that the new system will ensure that pay progression rewards people for acquiring and applying new knowledge and skills or consolidating existing ones, and not simply time served, although staff side do not accept the principle that automatic increments will be abolished. A set of proposals regarding "appraisal and development reviews" is currently being discussed and negotiated but most recent discussions are subject to strict confidentiality and further reports on proposals are awaited. Pay Bands and Gateways All staff will be assimilated on to one of the three new pay bands. The first pay band is for doctors and dentists. The second for nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine. The third pay band is for everyone who is not on the first or second. At present there is still discussion (and considerable speculation) about who will be included on the second (PRB) pay spine. Attention is particularly focussed on support groups, state registered professions and staff groups who although not currently registered are likely to be in the near future. Particular borderline professions within MSF are chaplains and health advisers; both groups currently in the process of establishing professional self-regulation with a view to becoming state registered. MSF believe that these and other groups such as health care assistants should move into this new pay review body. No clarification is likely to be forthcoming until Agenda for Change talks have been concluded. Gateways Gateways are points on a pay band where a full assessment of the application of knowledge and skills necessary to progress will be made, if the staff member wishes to progress. These are still being negotiated and are subject to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". Staff side has asked for a model of career and pay progression that would be fair to sell to members and it was agreed that staff side would use part of the next away day to draft proposals for guaranteeing fair practice.
Knowledge and Skills Framework
Principles and Overview - The purpose of the NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework is to provide a means of recognising the knowledge and skills which a person needs to apply to perform well in a particular NHS post, to help guide their development and ensure that any assessment of competence is objective and any concerns dealt with in the context of training and development. Steve Sloan has been appointed on the technical group to develop the knowledge and skills framework. It has been emphasised that it is not intended to be a set of occupational standards, a substitute for local job design or a disciplinary framework. The Knowledge and Skills Framework will be piloted from April 2002 in early implementers sites and it is hoped that it can be applied to all common NHS jobs from April 2003. Relationship with Job Evaluation - It is recognised that all jobs will be slotted into one of the three pay spines (described above ) on the basis of a job evaluation score. However, it is also recognised that although the post has a particular weight, the ability of post holders to add value to that role will vary according to the application of knowledge and skills. Details of the application of this principle are still under discussion. Proposed guidelines to support the principles of the knowledge and skills framework are that is should be simple, easy to explain and understand, operationally feasible to implement, capable of being used and linked with current and emerging competence frameworks, NHS-wide and applicable to all staff, supportive of the delivery of NHS plans and linked to professional regulatory standards.
Implementation Group - Barrie Brown.
It should be noted that the process of implementation includes assimilation onto new terms and conditions and the reconfiguration of services to patients. No arrangements have been made for backdating late implementers. The present intention is to begin implementation in April 2002. Early Implementers (based on health economies) will move their staff onto the system first but on the agreed phased basis. An early implementation period needs to be set and it is proposed that this will be 18 months at the latest, the exact time being dependent upon satisfactory monitoring and evaluation. The remainder of the service would go forward from April 2003 and October 2003 at the latest. Staff side have secured a clear agreement that those putting themselves forward as early implementers for April 2002 must have the full support of the local reps. All applications made by trusts to become early implementers will require support and approval from the trust chief executive and staff side officers. The criteria for applications must demonstrate a clear commitment to partnership working and best human resource practice. Further meetings are to be held on 5th and 12th July and it is expected that there will need to be urgent consultation with MSF members following that.
What next?
Most recent discussions and negotiations and the papers resulting from them are subject to strict confidentiality. We now await developments from forthcoming meetings later in July.