MessageFrom: Gill George
18 July 2003
Subject: AFC Update

Dear SLT

2 attachments.

The first is an interesting mini-debate from the House of Lords on 16th July. It's good to know that the implications for SLTs are becoming more widely known.

The second is a graph of existing SLT salaries (purple) and proposed AFC salaries. The size of the gap shows the problem we face. When you look at this, remember that the plan is that newly qualified SLTs will get Band 5 (an improvement, no real problems here), Team Leaders/ Specialists will get Band 6 (up to £27,500), Section Managers (e.g. Head of Paeds, Head of Adult Services) and Highly Specialists will get Band 7 (up to £32,300). There are obvious problems with the existing profiles, and they should be changed - but there is no realistic prospect of closing the salary gap simply by tweaking profiles.

I was invited, at quite short notice, to the RCSLT organised meeting on 16th July and attended this. Colin Adkins and Sarah Carpenter were there on behalf of the union, as was one of the SLT National Advisory Committee delegates. There was no attempt made, from anyone present, to argue that the profiles should be signed off.

There was a clear understanding from almost everyone there that if this goes through, the consequences for our profession will be disastrous. There was also, for the first time, an admission from the union that SLTs are set to lose money.

There was a long discussion on the way forward. Managers from the Early Implementer sites raised some very practical problems that need to be addressed urgently - in particular, the expectation from Trusts that jobs would be evaluated the route for negotiation of national profiles had been exhausted.It was agreed that Colin would write a statement on behalf of the union urging that posts are not evaluated prematurely.

At one Early Implementer site, staff have been instructed that they are not allowed to update their job descriptions. This is unacceptable. Colin will prepare a list of FAQs and responses to cover this and other issues e.g. advice to SLTs on local contracts, the implications of pay cuts for pensions and information about when early retirement will be financially beneficial, an understandable summary of pay protection, and guidance on the use of person specs, developing local job descriptions, information on any outstanding implications of our legal case etc.

A small group of senior SLTs will work on outstanding problems with profiles, and will push for a new profile at Consultant level. The DOH has already indicated that they will agree a profile at Consultant level, but has also indicated that it will apply only to a handful of people. A further gap identified in the meeting was for managers who also have specialist clinical responsibilities.

Colin Adkins proposed a campaign, primarily to be organised by the union. Unfortunately it was implied - but not spelled out - that the campaign will be for recruitment and retention premia.While these could protect salary, they are very insecure payments. The DOH regards them as transitional, they can be reduced or taken away, the value can be altered for new members of staff etc. This is if we are fortunate enough to get long-term national r & r premia. If we are left to fight for r & r premia at local level, things get even worse!

A proposed campaign is nevertheless something that should be taken up. It is intended to include an approach to the Secretary of State, joint College and union roadshows, letter writing campaigns to MPs, local press releases & letters etc. The Independednt is running a 'special' on speech and language therapy, and SLTs will be encouraged to write letters of response. The intention is to produce a Bulletin supplement to inform the largest possible number of SLTs of the threat we are facing and what they can do about it. There may be joint roadshows, with participants from the union and College.

This is a brief outline of the meeting - I'm happy to answer any individual questions if I can.

Gill George