One issue dominated this month and that was the proposed day of action planned for November 30th and the issue of NHS pensions.
You will probably have received correspondence on the proposed changes to the NHS pension scheme and I was asked to comment on the initial Treasury revised proposals. I was quoted as saying the changes amounted to very little and the examples quoted are very selective and certainly not the norm as most staff will under the imposed proposals work longer, pay more but also get significantly less pension. The facts provided stated that based on the new offer, some workers will actually receive larger pensions at retirement, though they will have to work longer and in most cases pay more to get them. It quoted a nurse with a salary at retirement of £34,200 would receive £22,800 of pension each year if these reforms were introduced – under the current NHS Pension Scheme 1995 arrangements, they would only get £17,300. Unfortunately for the Government the pensions people at Unite actually looked at the facts behind this statement they found that this example was based on a comparison of a nurse working for 43 years and retiring at age 68 in the proposed scheme and a nurse working for only 35 years and retiring at age 60 in the current scheme. So under the proposed scheme the pension quoted involves working and contributing for eight years more and receiving the pension for eight years less. Unite calculations indicate that if a like for like basis of comparison is made, based on working to the same age and the same length of service, then the proposed scheme produces worse benefits at every age up to 68. Retiring at age 60, at the top of pay band 6, earning £34,200 the nurse would be 40 per cent worse off and at 65 the nurse would be 20 per cent worse off.
The new proposals are also claimed to protect people who are 10 years or less from retirement also under transitional proposals and they are assured there will be no detriment to their retirement income. However when you include the loss of purchasing power during retirement on account of the proposed indexation change to the lower CPI measure of inflation the change could reduce the value of total pension income paid during a typical retirement by a further 11 per cent. Finally the Treasury document also failed to mention that the nurse and many other public sector workers will face a 50 per cent increase in their contributions, costing the nurse a further £1,000 a year gross, or £65 a month after tax
You do not have to only believe the staff side when they say that the NHS pension scheme covers its costs, most staff do not have a “gold plated” pension and the revised 2008 scheme will meet the needs of a modern NHS and its staff and is fair and affordable and taxpayers are protected as the employers’ contribution, which is paid by the taxpayer, is now capped so that taxpayers’ liability in the long-term has been limited. This is actually quoted in the view from NHS Employers form where the above statements are derived. It also states that every four years, the employee contribution will be re-evaluated to ensure the rates and benefits structure is adequately funded by members of the scheme so there is no need for additional contributions this is a pure tax on staff in the NHS.
Other organisations have also this month been advising their members. The PDA rightly point out that the NHS as an employer has a collective agreement with Unite (of which the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists is a part) and other major NHS Unions and they do not have an agreement to negotiate on pensions. In addition as they had not conducted a ballot they rightly cannot recommend or encourage any of its members to take industrial action. Importantly they advised members that participating in industrial action means an employee has no right to complain of unfair dismissal if at the time of dismissal she or he is taking part in an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has also advised its members from a professional perspective, which we welcomed and we published that advice on our website.
The result of the ballot for England and Wales was published on in the middle of November with seventy five per cent of Unite members voted YES in favour of action on a turnout of 31%. Some ministers have claimed the turnout of around 31% does not provide a mandate for example Francis Maude said Unison's strike ballot showed "extremely limited" support. In the Unison ballot some 78% said yes on a 29% turnout – 22.6% of the members. It is noted that at the last general election his party got 36% of the votes on a 65% turnout. That works out to be 23.4% of the electors.
As I stated last month as the most senior pharmacist in my organisation I will, on this occasion, be attending my place of work and donating my salary for the day to charity. The charity I will be donating to, as recommended by GHP, will be international health partners a charity that ensures that medicine donations are made to impoverished parts of the third world and equally importantly local professionals are trained to ensure their safe utilisation. It is intended that a plenary session at the next conference will cover the work of this organisation led by Trudi Hilton who has undertaken a number of secondments and field work on their behalf. Some people have stated they cannot lose a day’s pay either by strike action or by donating the money to either the strike fund or as myself to a particular charity then remember that putting the day of action into context the proposed changes and increases in contributions equate to one days salary for every month for the rest of your working life.
Pensions and the day of action was not the only issue in November. On the professional side I was involved in a meeting with the President and staff of the RPS on the Impact Evaluation of the Responsible Pharmacist Regulations and we are grateful to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Professional Forum of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland for the invitation as a key stakeholder to participate in all stages of this project. We do have some issues on how the report seems to understand the application of the Medicines Act to hospital practice and the confusion over managerial and legal/professional accountability for systems of safe practice. We will publish our full response when the document is released but we will continue to be engaged especially as we move forward to dealing with supervision. Vilma Gilis continues the GHP input into the Pharmacy Implementation Group looking at New Medicine Service(NMS) and targeted MURs that are part of the new pharmacy contract for community pharmacy. We are particulary exploring how better links between hospital and community pharmacy can improve patient care when new patients are initiated on the designated higher risk medications.
One issue that we will be addressing going forward is the work being undertaken by the MHRA to consolidate and revise the Medicines Act legislation. Unfortunately after two short notice cancellations and an equally short notice rearrangement neither myself, Richard Cattell or Tony West, who had been involved in previous discussions were able to attend the meeting on 22nd November. We will however be ensuring that the changes and their effect on pharmacy practice will be highlighted.
There was a council meeting this month followed the next day by the Group Secretaries Meeting with external guests from a wide range of organisations invited. The council meeting was the last of the present council and thus a new excecutive team was elected.
The new GHP Executive Team will be:
David Miller President Dave Thornton Vice President Richard Cattell – Immediate Past President
Peter Leslie – Chair of Terms & Conditions Graeme Richardson – Chair of Practice Roisin O Hare – Chair of Education
In addition to the above team we adopted two additional posts on a temporary basis Vilma Gilis will support the Executive by continuing for the next two years as Organisational Secretary reducing the burden of the Immediate Past President, who has already served six years, in relation to European Affairs. Also, Waz Baqir has agreed to support the Chair of Education as cover for Maternity Leave. As the above council meeting was the last meeting it means we move into an election process for the 10 regional members to complete the Council. Nominations forms and details of the election process will soon appear on the website.
The Group Secretaries day dealt with a number of topics and provided a forum for a two way discussion on the latest background to on-call and the potential to utilise, as they have done at Aintree, the provisions of the local recruitment and retention premia to support pharmacist salaries in relation to on-call. This cannot be applicable nationwide, but is one of the few provisions in Agenda for Change to pay enhanced salaries due to justifiable local market forces making recruitment and retention difficult. For equal pay purposes this must be constantly reviewed and if conditions change as happen with craft workers it will be withdrawn. Details of local agreements are available on the website and we are more than willing to publish other signed final agreements if forwarded. Obviously there was a long discussion on pensions and the Day of Action led by Fiona Farmer Unite Head of Health and Dave Thornton the outgoing Chair of Terms and Conditions, but the day as would be expected with GHP also included professional issues with a update on primary care re-organisation in England, Priya Warner discussing the GPhC guidance documents on consent, confidentiality, maintaining professional boundaries and raising concerns and finally a session updating the group on progress with the three Modernising Pharmacy Careers workstreams with assistance from BPSA President Ryan Hamilton and Tess Fenn from APTUK.
Finally the month closed with news that the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement Jones has tabled an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill to end the automatic criminalising of dispensing errors. We congratulate the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, who worked with Lord Clement Jones, to ensure the amendment was tabled after other avenues had been exhausted. This issue of Section 64, it’s strict liability provisions and the inappropriate use in dispensing errors has long been a campaign issue for GHP and we will fully support the RPS in seeking to address this provision originally designed to deal with adulteration not dispensing errors.
Dave Miller - GHP President