If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume you’re happy to receive all cookies from the BMA website. Find out more about cookies
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms.
You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies are required
These cookies allow us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information we collect is anonymous unless you actively provide personal information to us.
If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies allow a website to remember choices you make (such as your user name, language or the region you're in) and tailor the website to provide enhanced features and content for you.
For example, they can be used to remember certain log-in details, changes you've made to text size, font and other parts of pages that you can customise. They may also be used to provide services you've asked for such as watching a video or commenting on a blog. These cookies may be used to ensure that all our services and communications are relevant to you. The information these cookies collect cannot track your browsing activity on other websites.
Without these cookies, a website cannot remember choices you've previously made or personalise your browsing experience meaning you would have to reset these for every visit. In addition, some functionality may not be available if this category is switched off.
Our websites sometimes integrate with other companies’ sites. For example, we integrate with social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, to make it easier for you to share what you have read. These sites place their own cookies on your browser as a result of us including their icons and ‘like’ or ‘share’ buttons on our sites.
Most of you will by now have seen the Secretary of State for Health’s response to the Annual Pay Review from the DDRB and the derisory and outrageous 1.5% (against a 2% DDRB recommended increase) pay increase for consultants which it outlines. To add insult to injury that pay increase comes into effect in October and will not be backdated to April.Apart from the obvious facts that the new Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, has wilfully declined to follow the DDRB’s recommended 2% uplift for doctors, and that once again this is a below inflationary uplift (and therefore effectively a real terms pay cut), as this uplift comes into effect in October (and is not backdated) it is actually a 0.75% uplift, which is to say less than the 1% uplift which we have received in previous years.
In other words, then, our real terms pay cut (a pay cut which comes on the back of a 19% decrease in real term pay over the last 10 years) is actually larger than in previous years. We have also yet to receive clarity on whether trusts can choose to use the CEA funding to pay for transition, rather than using it to uplift the value of awards. What is clear is that the DDRB suggested that a 2% uplift should apply to CEAs but the Government’s response was that the value of existing awards would be frozen and that 0.5% of the pay bill would be allocated to employers to increase the funding available for new awards from 2019/20, with half that amount this year solely to fund employers’ obligation to run awards rounds that are your contractual entitlement. We can now plainly see that that Matt Hancock’s words of last week about how ‘heart-breaking’ it was for him to see how ‘under-valued’ NHS staff feel, were merely a politician’s soundbite. Instead, we now know the truth: this Secretary of State does not value doctors in the NHS, and of doctors in the NHS this level of annual uplift suggests he values consultants least of all. At the time of writing it seems that the award to consultants is the lowest amongst all public sector workers - we are clear that does not reflect your value to the country but does clearly illustrate why consultants are justifiably so very angry.It is now also clear to us that the government’s much heralded 3.4% NHS investment increase is in some part subsidised by ongoing and unacceptable reductions in consultants pay. The BMA consultants committee and BMA staff are still in the process of analysing what this means for our ongoing contract negotiations, but what I am absolutely clear on is that the year on year reduction in consultant’s pay cannot continue: consultants are the cornerstone of a faltering NHS secondary care service, to continue to undermine their loyalty and commitment to their place within the NHS could bring that service to its knees. Moreover, we will review our measured collegiate approach to dealing with this government since results such as this imply that this may no longer be our best way forward. We can also expect that this announcement will only make any eventual ballot on a new consultant contract much less likely to succeed. I would just like to be clear to you that I share your anger and the anger of our colleagues. Tuesday’s profoundly demoralising announcement will only increase the exodus of skilled and expert consultants from the profession, and increase the workforce and morale crisis under which we are all working. We will do all that we can to ensure that you are valued and rewarded appropriately. Rob Harwood is Chair of the BMA consultants committee
Thanks Mr Hancock for showing just how much you value consultants. Will bear that in mind when asked to do any extra work.... last shred of goodwill kicked into touch
Time to work to the letter of my contract and hammer the waiting list work
So what has been the point of the BMA in this? You've managed to negotiate an effective pay cut for the last few years. Well done
BMA - it’s no good telling us what you think. Do something about it.
I am struggling to understand this consultant pay cut when the massively increasing management structure year on year can be allocated significant pay rises .
A hospital could be run by very few managers but try running it without consultants !
Why are we sitting back and letting this continue ?
This is a pay offer, supposedly, so presumably we can decline it as inadequate, as it patently is, and ask for direct negotiation on an improved offer backed by a threat if industrial action in the form of a work to contract?
Also why has some of my basic pay award been stolen to fund a performance pay system which a significant proportion of hard working colleagues do not benefit from at all and which contributes significantly to our gender pay problem in medicine. This is scandalous.
This proposal by the government is unaccepatble. For how long can we continue to tolerate such injustice? We should go on strike.
Just not good enough BMA
Yes; time the BMA stopped fixating about CEA awards for the chosen few. They are just a mechanism for division and infighting. Scrap them all and give us all a small boost. Interesting how after months and months the only bit of the 'new' consultant contract that has been agreed is the bit about CEAs
The reason the government have done this is because they can. Our union representation across both consultants and junior doctors has been pretty shambolic. In addition we need to stop feeling apologetic for earning a decent wage. The reason that we can't recruit and retain doctors is because the consultant pay and especially pensions has been seriously devalued over time. If they don't want to pay us well then discuss alternatives to help like salary sacrifice schemes where mortgage, rent etc come out of pre tax money. This will also reduce our annual allowance and pension pot liabilities. This is what the Australian government do to keep people in the public sector. At the end of the day it's supply and demand. People no longer yearn to be a consultant as its bloody hard work with little financial reward. The BMA needs to be better organised and definitely more media and social media savvy.
Short of industrial action, naturally.
The BMA must stand firm in the negotiations in respect of the new contract which must be valued at an appropriate level to ensure consultants are properly rewarded and motivated. Anything less and the BMA should break off negotiations and ballot for industrial action.
Year on year pay awards below inflation are unacceptable and detrimental. This can not continue and this years' award of 0.75 is in my view a deliberate attempt to demoralise the consultant body and allow the government to force a new contract through with detrimental effects on consultant working and reward.
This must be resisted in the strongest possible terms. The overall pay envelope must reflect proper and fair reward for consultants at 2018-9 levels and not 2003.
The new health secretary has demonstrated how little the government value both the consultant workforce and not least the wider NHS by not funding the award which will further diminish the funds available for patient care in the coming financial year.
It is quite clear that despite the rhetoric that the government is intent upon undermining, fragmenting and then privatising the NHS.
Disgraceful, the government will have a go at us time and again unless we start doing something about it. As it stands, they clearly have the measure of us, and will keep pushing....
The NHS relies on the goodwill and unpaid work of its staff including consultants. A strike will never be supported but if the BMA called for a ‘work to rule’ action it should be. Don’t do any paid extra sessions, if you overrun in a clinic, theatre session, ED shift etc. to keep patients safe claim back the time within a week, don’t squeeze extra patients into clinics, withdraw from the unpaid efficiency agenda work that you do, withdraw from the unpaid quality improvement agenda work that you do etc etc. The bad publicity would be limited, ‘Evil doctors only work the hours they are paid for’ headline wouldn’t be that damaging. The effects of this action would be near instantaneous. The government are secretly terrified that we might do this. If we allow a 0.75% pay rise without any response then we will (rightly) be hammered year after year. We need the BMA to actively rally us to take action and we need to respond strongly to the call if it comes.
The Juniors voted 98% in favour of strike.
Time for Consultants to do the same.
If the BMA let's us down the HCSA will clean up.