By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Chancellor abandons regional pay

Chancellor George Osborne has abandoned plans to introduce regional pay in the NHS. However, he accepted the NHS Pay Review Body’s call for the Agenda for Change pay framework to be altered in order “to meet the challenges and cost pressures in the NHS.”

The review body has also recommended a “fundamental review of higher cost area zones” which see staff working predominantly in London and the South East paid more.

The decision to retain national pay bargaining is a major victory for health unions and Liberal Democrats who had opposed the introduction of regional pay when it was mooted in March this year.

The Department of Health had wanted to see the introduction of what it called “market facing pay”, with an increased number of higher cost area zones within the existing Agenda for Change framework.

In its evidence to the pay review body in April, the DH had suggested a new higher pay zone covering outer London and much of the south, including most of the home counties, Hampshire and the Bristol area.

A second option would include this area plus parts of the Midlands including Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Nottingham and Derbyshire, as well as areas in and around Manchester and Leeds.

This would have been funded by holding down pay elsewhere.

In his autumn statement Mr Osborne said: “The government has today published the reports of the independent pay review bodies on local pay and intends to accept their recommendations, including that there should be no new centrally determined local pay rates or zones but that there should be greater use of existing flexibilities.”

In its report to ministers, published alongside the autumn statement, the pay review body said it supports the idea of market facing pay to “support recruitment and retention of good quality staff to deliver patient care” and to “make more effective and efficient use of NHS funds”.

But it rejected the government’s claim that public sector pay was damaging the private sector.

It said: “Our view is that there has yet to be hard evidence that a positive public sector pay differential is crowding out the private sector and hurting business.”

The body concluded there was no “firm evidence…to justify further additional market-facing pay in the NHS at this time, although further development of AfC is needed to meet the challenges and cost pressures in the NHS”.

It supported Agenda for Change as the “appropriate vehicle” but said a regular review of the framework and its flexibilities was needed with negotiations “brought to a conclusion at a reasonable pace”.

It added NHS trusts “should have transparent pay and reward policies which clearly state their approach to the use of AfC flexibilities”.

Readers' comments (4)

  • Mike Jackson

    The NHSPRB report is a bit of a curates egg. Supports AFC and national negotiations but potentially leaves many regions with years of pay freezes whilst HCAS used to create regional / local differentials. Clearly a slap in the face for the South West consortium. Will these FTs now split from NHS Employers? Interesting that SW HRD chairs the Staff Council whilst at plotting to break up national agreement. At the same time Unite sit on staff side but submit seprate evidence to the PRB. It's called having your cake and eating it.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Seems as if all the consortium members have wasted £10,000 of public money. Still, one or two management consultants have done alright from it. Pity though - local pay determination offered the NHS its only salvation: a repeat of the missed opportunity in the 1990s.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • I didn't think decisions made by FTs are anything to do with him? Regional pay will roll on because otherwise patient services will have to be cut further and further and it is actually the patients we are all here to serve.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Nothing to do with the Chancellor? Some grown ups might think that everything has to do with him, even the FT's are still within publically funded systems. Aren't they?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Share this



Related images

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

Sign up to get the latest health policy news direct to your inbox