The panel heard from Ann James, Chief Executive of Plymouth NHS Hospitals Trust.  Ms James reported that –

(a)   the Consortium was a group of 20 health trusts identifying opportunities to standardise practice;

(b)  the Trust Board and management team were aware of the anxiety and distress caused to staff and had set up a dedicated line to Ms James where staff could raise their concerns;

(c)   whatever proposals were made by the consortium,  they would need to be approved by the Trust Board;

(d)  no decisions would been taken without due consideration of all alternative options;

(e)  63 per cent of the Trust’s income was spent on wages which equated to around £230million per year, if there were no changes made to pay, terms and conditions the wage bill would increase by a further £7million in 2013-14;

(f)    every work day there was approximately 230 people absent across the Trust which cost in the region of £7million per year,  there were many reasons for absence and the Trust worked with staff to address them;

(g)   all alternative options to changes to pay, terms and conditions would be explored with decisions being made in an open and transparent manner;

(h)  the  consortium would continue to meet and would be providing feedback to the Trust on a regular basis,  a business case was expected before the end of the calendar year;

(i)    Ms James was committed to high quality patient care and would ensure that staff were involved and views taken into account when the Trust made decisions regarding changes to pay, terms and conditions.

In response to questions from the panel it was reported that –

(j)    the Trust Board would be advised on possible opportunities for shared services and alternative service delivery in order to make informed decisions when considering any proposals regarding pay, terms and conditions. Although the Trust experienced a large amount of sickness absence,  care needed to be taken on how sickness absence was addressed, particularly in an acute hospital setting;

(k)  the Trust was disappointed with staff survey results which put the Trust in the bottom 20 per cent of Trusts with regard to engagement with staff.  There was work taking place to address the problem. Although current discussions on pay, terms and conditions may impact on staff morale, the financial situation could not be ignored and all options had to be explored;

(l)    all areas of the public sector were dealing with issues of this nature and the Trust Board would take full responsibility for any final decisions made regarding pay, terms and conditions.  The Trust was not in a position to choose efficiency savings over changes to pay, terms and conditions and had to explore both;

(m)consistency in pay, terms and conditions would allow for improved recruitment and retention;

(n)  theapproach would be open and transparent. The Trust was aware of the large contribution they made to the economy of the city and the sub region;

(o)  staff were still providing excellent care to all patients, staff were aware of discussions regarding changes to pay , terms and conditions but their priority remained patient care;

(p)  there were some services for which the Trust struggled to recruit.  A long term plan for recruitment would be developed. There were not any definitive proposals for outsourcing; the current situation was unsettling for staff and the Trust would ensure that staff were being engaged. The Trust did not want to prolong the uncertainty about pay and the future direction of the hospital;

(q)  that many clinicians believed that that  model of a large acute Trust providing a wide range of services was out dated and needed to change rapidly with more services delivered in the community and the need for hospitals to shrink.  The Trust needed to be engaged in that debate.  The Health community needed to provide the right service at the right size in the right place and the Hospital would need to carefully consider its future place in the new health system;

(r)   the Trust recognised its role in health care in Devon and Cornwall and would ensure fairness across the ‘bigger patch’. No proposals had been put forward by the consortium and when proposals were made the Trust Board would consider the impact on services and staff morale;

(s)   all staff across the Trust were included in the consortium’s discussions, including managers;

(t)   the Trust would be required to make approximate savings of £40 million over two years.  The Trust would be reviewing plans in place and  arrangements with commissioners;

(u)  with regard to national ‘Agenda for Change’ negotiations the board would need to discuss and express a view on those negotiations.  Pay, terms and conditions needed to be sustainable for staff and services.

The panel thanked Ms James for her attendance and contribution.