Health Services National Advisory Committee 28 March 2003

Why is London not represented?

 

The NEC have decided that the Health Sector in London, the Region with the largest NHS membership in the Union, will not be represented at to - day’s meeting of the NAC.

Over 7,500 members have been deprived of their right to be represented at the meeting that will de - cide the ballot recommendation on Agenda for Change.

What’s the reason?

In February, Frank Wood resigned as the London representative after 5 years continuous service. The London Region Health Service Advisory Committee elected Gill George as his replacement to serve the remainder of his term of office. Gill attended the last HSNAC without problem.

But someone raised a complaint— the NEC minutes don’t give a name. The NEC found that Gill had been elected in breach of the Standing Orders and declared the election null and void.

What actually happened?

The LRHSAC where Gill’s election took place had over 40 NHS members present, most o f them Reps. The Committee has operated, over the last few years, by allowing all Health members present to participate and vote.

 Then someone in the meeting discovered the Standing Orders written in 1992 and hardly remembered (let alone circulated) today. They declared that the only people who could vote were elected delegates from branches and groups. Note—it was not good enough to be a Rep— you had be specifically delegated from your Group to attend.

Everyone was astounded. The Secretary didn’t have a list of eligible delegates— because no one knew they had to elect them. The Chair ruled that to maintain current practice, all NHS members could vote. His ruling was agreed overwhelmingly.

The meeting elected the Chair and Secretary of the Committee. The Secretary’s position was contested. One of the Regional Officers responsible for the Health Sector acted as teller—there didn’t seem to be problems about the elections at that point.

Gill was then elected as the HSNAC delegate unop- posed.

So the question of who could or could not vote in the meeting was irrelevant for Gill’s election!

The decisions were endorsed by the Regional Council and by the subsequent LRHSAC (also large).

 What did the NEC decide?

The NEC met on March 15 and ruled that the HSNAC delegate election had to be rerun. No mention was made of the contested election for Secretary!

 The General Secretary had informed the Regional Council Secretary before the NEC meeting that the Head of Health was conducting an investigation, but it seems no one in London was given an opportunity to comment on the complaint before the NEC made its decision. The outgoing Secretary of the LRHSAC received an investigative letter from the Head of Health after the NEC meeting!

Gill George was informed that her invitation to the NAC had been withdrawn by a letter received on Wednesday of this week—10 days after the NEC.

Frank Wood then received an email, sent yesterday at 14:58, informing him that, although he had re - signed, he was still the London delegate! He can’t attend because of clinical commitments and the Head of Health has refused to allow him to appoint a substitute.

 If the NEC was really concerned that London should be represented would they have waited until less than 24 hours before the meeting to issue an invitation to Frank?

Maybe they were just trying to cover themselves fo l - lowing a flurry of protest emails from London Reps yesterday.

WAS GILL’S ELECTION ANY LESS DEMOC - RATIC THAN THAT OF OTHER NAC DELE - GATES?

Is her exclusion anything to do with her public op - position to Agenda for Change? Is it a coincidence that Regional Officers instructed Reps in Scotland not to circulate documents written by her?

The HSNAC should exert its authority—we are supposed to be a lay-led Union—and demand that Gill be admitted to the meeting.

.

 

What Gill would have said...

 

Two ballots – is this the way forward?

Two ballots will not solve the fundamental problems with Agenda for Change. It’s under-funded and it supports a ‘modernisation’ that may prove to be against the interests of our members.

The 2 ballots line has been publicised as union policy. It isn’t. The last NAC agreed that it was our job to decide on the timetable and procedure for consultation and ballot. W e decide on the number of ballots we have.

But UNISON members were told at their Health Service Group Executive, after voting thirty -three to two to oppose Agenda for Change as it stands now, that “two ballots” was already Amicus policy. This was enough for a majority to recommend two ballots rather than outright rejection to their Health Conference.

There is no evidence that the DOH will consider any real renegotiation after the Early Implementers. The letter from Ben Dyson is incredibly vague. We're told that 'it would be legitimate for staff side colleagues to raise concerns' over pay protection. But it seems there can be no fundamental changes to the agreement, just tinkerin g with its implementation. There is no opening to discuss harmonisation of the working week at 35 hours.

The DOH is now saying that evaluation of Early Implementers will begin at the end of December 2003. Many EI sites are nowhere near launching AFC on 1st June. So we've had 4 years of negotiations leading to chaos - and we're expected to believe that this can all be resolved in a few months of Early Implementer experience. This is nonsense.

London members are against 2 ballots. The reality is that we will be told things have gone too far to reverse, the Government will throw enough money at Early Implementers to avoid major disasters, and it will be very difficult to vote against something that is seen as a done deal. Our view is that it's simply wrong in principle to accept pay cuts, an hours increase for 60%, competency pay etc - wrong now, and wrong in the future.

If we are stuck with 2 ballots, we want to see the NAC call for a ‘No’ vote in the first ballot.

Is Agenda for Change in the interests of our members?

Roger Spiller told us last month that AFC was under-funded by 15 to 20%. Many members will lose money. Members at a meeting in Glasgow on 18th March were told that 8% of members would lose out. The real figure for Amicus MSF members may be much higher. Pay protection is not a solution to pay cuts. Pay protection means protection for one year, followed by a pay freeze from 2005 to 2011. In real terms, this is a year on year pay cut.

The issues around on call are not resolved. We’re told that we can sort everything through recruitment and retention premia, and told these are safe for life. This seems to be based on a private understanding with the DOH – we have seen nothing in writing that says that premia are safe. The Proposed Agreement says that the value will be reviewed regularly, may be varied for new entrants, and that recruitment and retention premia will be used for a transitional period only. Our last understanding with the DOH was that local on call payments were safe for life - this disappeared as soon as the Proposed Agreement was published. If it's not in the written agreement, we can't risk our members’ livelihoods.

Vote ‘No’

We can’t possibly sanction a ‘Yes’ vote for proposals  that, frankly, are not even fit to put to the membership. It might be tempting for the NAC to make no recommendation, and leave it up to members to decide. This would be a complete abdication of responsibility.
We know the ins and outs of Agenda for Change – our members might not. If we can't in all honesty recommend this to our members, we can't leave them to stumble blindly into a rotten deal.

Members don’t join a Union in order for the Union to negotiate a pay cut or worse working conditions. We are Union members to defend one another. Our unity is our strength. We know that a significant number of our members will lose out if Agenda for Change goes through. Every Union member pays subscriptions; every Union member deserves our support. The only principled position we can take is to call for a ‘No’ vote.

 

Motion on Agenda for Change from London Region Health Service Advisory Committee

This NAC believes that the Union must stand by all its members. If any group of members is likely to suffer worse pay and conditions as a result of Agenda for Change, we resolve to call for and campaign for a ‘No’ vote in the ballot.

The explanatory material to be distributed to the members before and during the ballot will be agreed by lay members through existing OAC and Regional structures. All material produced will also publicise the decision of this NAC.

Agreed by LRHSAC on 13 February 2003