Back in September, delegates to the Amicus Speech and Language Therapy National Advisory Committee came close to signing off new job profiles for our profession. The profiles would almost certainly have led to pay cuts for significant numbers of SLTs - and signing up to them would have taken all pressure off the Department of Health to make concessions. The September meeting was assured by Gail Cartmail (Amicus Head of Health) and by Colin Adkins (Amicus NHS Policy and Research Officer) that there was no scope for changing the profiles that had been issued, that we would negotiate new profiles to sort out all the problems, and that Agenda for Change would lead to pay increases for many SLTs!

Thankfully, there has now been a significant u-turn by the Amicus leadership. Colin Adkins told the London Region Managers meeting last Thursday that he regretted having advised signing off the profiles. He told the SLT National Advisory Committee on 10th November that it would be 'ill-advised' to sign off any of the profiles. In the context of this new advice from the union leadership, the SLT National Advisory Committee did not sign off any profiles for our profession. This is a significant victory for us. Instead, the meeting looked closely at job profiles and suggested amendments that will be submitted to the Department of Health.

There is a clear reason for the change in position from the union leadership. There is growing opposition at every level of our profession to any settlement on AFC that will lead to pay cuts for SLTs. The 'Statement' opposing a damaging deal was signed by a magnificent 321 SLTs from around the country. It was sent to union officers and SLT National Advisory Committee delegates just before the sudden change of heart from the union leadership. This may not be a coincidence! And the 'Statement' - like this month's excellent Bulletin - is simply a reflection of a strong feeling that we are not prepared to sit back and do nothing while the future of the profession is at stake.

Therapists around the country are continuing to organise and campaign. Many of us have written to newspapers - with letters appearing in the Times, the Independent, Therapy Weekly and many others. SLTs have been responsible for an excellent report on Radio 4's PM programme, and for a mini-debate in the House of Lords. There are now proposals for a public meeting with Simon Hughes MP specifically on the question of what AFC means for SLTs. London SLTs are exploring the possibility of a lobby of Parliament. Many SLTs have written to or visited their MPs. Visiting MPs surgeries in groups may be a particularly effective way of way of doing this. Now is the time to step up the pressure. For a small profession, we are doing remarkably well at making ourselves heard.

If SLTs had done nothing to organise ourselves, there is no question that damaging job profiles would already have been signed off and would already be in use at the Early Implementer pilot sites. We have done very well to stop this happening. However, we are still at the start of a fight over AFC, not the end of it. College and the union have pushed twice before for a better outcome - first in April, and more recently in October. Both times, the response from the Department of Health has fallen very far short of what we are looking for. It is possible that the Department of Health will cave in to pressure this time around, but there are no guarantees of this.

The profiles we currently have on offer are not fit for use - both in terms of the detail within them, and the failure to provide a career structure. They should absolutely not be signed off in their current form. If they are implemented as they stand now, we are looking at pay cuts as high as 37% for our Band 4 therapists - with a 'ripple down' effect likely to push down salaries for our Band 3s and for therapists at the top of Band 2. The only people to gain in the short-term would be newly qualified SLTs - at the cost of all future career prospects.

Even if we succeed in gaining concessions on paper, AFC needs close examination. We will not be able to control how SLTs are slotted in just by issuing our own written advice. The experience from our national regrading was that cost was a determining factor in far too many Trusts. And AFC is not just about money - it also involves an increase in working hours and a cut in annual leave for SLTs. My own view is that we should also consider the outcome for other groups in Amicus, and for our colleagues in the wider NHS. Many Amicus members are set to lose out on pay, and 60% will have their working hours increased. Under Agenda for Change, the starting salary for many NHS workers will be only £10,400 for a full-time job. I believe that AFC is seriously under-funded, and that our union should go back to the Government and argue for enough funds that there is an acceptable outcome for all of us. If we can't achieve that, we should oppose AFC - and we should campaign for a 'No' vote in the second ballot next year.

If you would like more detailed information on the profile amendments suggested by the SLT NAC, please let me know and I will send these on. It would also be great to hear the views of other SLTs on AFC. This is the most significant issue that many of us will face in our working lives.

Gill George
Secretary, London Speech and Language Therapy Advisory Committee
12th November 2003