The panel welcomed Richard Griffiths, Industrial Relations Manager, British Medical Association (BMA). Mr Griffiths reported that –

(a)   the BMA was well aware of the challenges facing the NHS, nationally, regionally and in Trusts locally. It remained the policy of the BMA to resist any erosion of terms and conditions of service.  Any proposal which sought to undermine the application of national terms and conditions for doctors in the NHS was rejected as an inappropriate way of attempting to save costs and would not gain support at local or regional level;

(b)  any attempt to diminish the terms and conditions currently applicable to medically qualified staff in the SW region would be counter-productive and a dangerous and unnecessary diversion for Trust Managers at a time when the cooperation and commitment of medical staff was an absolute necessity to the success and survival of many Trusts;

(c)   whilst Trusts may wish to consider all the options available to them, the BMA strongly recommended that trusts concentrated on identifying operational savings through better management of existing resources rather than make attacks on the terms and conditions of members. It was not the terms and conditions which were the problem, but how they were managed;

(d)  the BMA was not prepared to enter into any discussions with Trusts, either individually or collectively, by region or sub region, if proposals were detrimental to nationally agreed terms and conditions;

(e)  the BMA would strenuously resist any attempts to undermine nationally negotiated terms and conditions at both local and regional levels;

(f)    the BMA was prepared to be and had been actively involved in assisting Trusts to better manage the terms and conditions of medical staff at a local level;

(g)   the BMA had seen the “Local Pay Compressor” suggestions of the Consortium in relation to Medical Staff and was struck by the poverty of thought with many of the suggestions amounting to unworkable proposals that had previously been rejected by both the Employers and BMA at national level;

(h)  the dangers associated with all of the proposals far outweighed the benefits and the Trusts in the south west should engage with Medical Staff through the established local negotiating committees to facilitate improved management of existing resources rather than attacking the terms and conditions in an attempt to get changes that simply will not be delivered but may end up being extremely destructive.

In response to question from members of the panel it was reported that –

(i)    there would undoubtedly be a negative impact on patients;

(j)    the proposals for medical staff would not deliver significant savings. Medical staff needed to be engaged in how to move organisations moved forward and deliver a ‘best practice’ organisations, those discussing possible proposals clearly had little experience in clinical management;

(k)  the process that the consortium had embarked on was tactically inept. All trusts needed to consider the challenges that faced them. The terms and conditions debate had diverted attention away from the important work of service redesign.

The panel thanked Mr Griffiths for his contribution.