1. Agenda for Change proposals and consultation November 2012

2. Where are we? u Agenda for Change (AfC) - nationally negotiated terms and conditions of employment, covering the majority of NHS staff in the UK. u There have been joint union and employer proposals to change some nationally agreed AfC terms in England. u We have negotiated in order to protect AfC and a national framework u National collective bargaining has been protected to date. u RCN Council and NHS Staff Council consultation will be completed by mid-January.

3. The context u Continuing economic recession. u Pressures on public sector finances. u Pay restraint/local market-facing pay has been proposed across the public sector. u Trusts did not deliver AfC benefits before economic downturn resulted in cuts. u NHS reforms are encouraging competition. u Negative public perceptions that public sector staff are paid too much for what they do. u AfC needs to be seen to be a flexible system that can react when necessary and is fit for purpose.

4. Some of the original employer proposals u Increasing the working week to 40 hours. u Reducing the hours covered by unsocial hours (‘USH’) payments. u Reducing annual leave. u Freezing increments in recruitment and retention payments (RRPs). u Removing USH on sickness absence. u Tighter performance criteria at each increment. u Reducing the number of pay points.

5. Case study: the South West pay cartel u Plans were leaked May 2012. u These plans threaten dismissal and re-engagement of staff on new, detrimental terms and conditions. u 20 out of 24 trusts in the SW paid £10,000 each to join. u RCN has co-ordinated a strong local trade union campaign and has lobbied nationally with thousands of members sending letters to MPs. u Some of the 20 trusts have indicated they may withdraw from the cartel.

6. Trade union engagement u Staff side consultation took place in July 2012. u Proposals rejected but some seen as less contentious. u Majority still wanted a national solution. u Mandate for national negotiators to develop an offer – contingent on commitment to AfC and withdrawal from the SW pay cartel.

7. The proposals u Gateways at each pay point linked to local performance measures (in addition to Knowledge and Skills Framework (KSF)). u Removal of double increment in Band 5. u Annually earned increments for some very senior managers (Bands 8c, 8d and 9). u Removal of USH payments during sick leave; protection for work- injured staff and pay points 1-8 and requirement for managers to follow POSHH guidance on managing sickness absence. This does not apply to sickness that is work-related. u The bar for (locally determined) ‘Very Senior Manager Pay’ changed from 720 (Band 9) to 630 points (Band 8C). u Guidance on workforce re-profiling reinforces JE.

8. Considerations u NHS should have addressed PFI, rationalised and re-organised: the reality is they didn’t. u Judgement call – that agreement to some flexibility ensures the majority buy into AfC and stability of national system. u Managed change rather than local pay chaos. u UK impact – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. u Original list of changes sought by Foundation Trust Network was more extensive and cut deeper than current proposals.

9. Next steps u Branch/board/national committee/forum consultation. u Questions and pro-forma for responses. u Information for representatives and members to encourage engagement. u Supported by national and regional officers. u Continues pressure on trusts in SW cartel to withdraw. u Consultation closes 18 January 2013. u Decision made late February 2013. u Implementation (or not) in April 2013.

10. Questions Branches will be asked to rank their answers on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being strongly disagree, and 5 being strongly agree. 1. Should the RCN support these national (England) changes? 2. Is supporting these changes better than risking individual or groups of employers making their own changes to terms and conditions? 3. These changes will persuade my employer to retain the national AfC agreement. 4. The RCN should reject these proposals and take the risk of individual or groups of employers making their own changes to terms and conditions. 5. The RCN should reject the proposals and I would support resisting any changes. Trusts may make subsequently including taking industrial action if necessary.