This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/07/doctors-union-secret-pay-hikes-bma

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Doctors' union awards secret pay hikes to senior members Doctors' union awards secret pay hikes to senior members
(4 days later)
The doctors’ union has sparked anger by secretly awarding its senior figures pay rises of up to 137% and doubling its leader’s salary to £172,000 at a time when most medics are suffering pay restraint, the Guardian can reveal.The doctors’ union has sparked anger by secretly awarding its senior figures pay rises of up to 137% and doubling its leader’s salary to £172,000 at a time when most medics are suffering pay restraint, the Guardian can reveal.
Doctors and politicians have condemned the hikes in the salaries of seven key British Medical Association (BMA) representatives as scandalous and unjustified.Doctors and politicians have condemned the hikes in the salaries of seven key British Medical Association (BMA) representatives as scandalous and unjustified.
Dr Mark Porter, who as the BMA’s chair of council is its UK leader and main spokesman, has seen his income go from £88,320 last year to £171,692 – a rise of 94%. Dr Mark Porter, who as the BMA’s chair of council is its UK leader and main spokesman, has seen his income go from £88,320 last year to £171,692 – a rise of 94% [see footnote].
The chair of the BMA in Scotland, Dr Peter Bennie, has seen his salary go up 137%, from £32,205 to £76,431, while his counterpart in Wales, Dr Philip Banfield, has also received an increase of 99%, from £31,500 to £62,631. The income of the Northern Ireland chair, Dr John Woods, rose from £30,150 to £62,631 – up 108%.The chair of the BMA in Scotland, Dr Peter Bennie, has seen his salary go up 137%, from £32,205 to £76,431, while his counterpart in Wales, Dr Philip Banfield, has also received an increase of 99%, from £31,500 to £62,631. The income of the Northern Ireland chair, Dr John Woods, rose from £30,150 to £62,631 – up 108%.
The payments are embarrassing for the BMA, which in March criticised the coalition’s decision to deny doctors pay increases as “an insult” that “devalued and demoralised” NHS medics.The payments are embarrassing for the BMA, which in March criticised the coalition’s decision to deny doctors pay increases as “an insult” that “devalued and demoralised” NHS medics.
A confidential internal BMA briefing paper outlining the changes states that three other BMA “chief officers” – its treasurer, chair of its representative body and president – also received pay rises of 21%, 28% and 7% respectively, taking their salaries up to £83,077, £68,077 and £25,000. It also states that the union’s deputy chair is to start receiving £20,000, but not his original salary.A confidential internal BMA briefing paper outlining the changes states that three other BMA “chief officers” – its treasurer, chair of its representative body and president – also received pay rises of 21%, 28% and 7% respectively, taking their salaries up to £83,077, £68,077 and £25,000. It also states that the union’s deputy chair is to start receiving £20,000, but not his original salary.
The union is also under fire for failing to acknowlede that it had awarded the hikes, which has sparked a major internal row in the ranks of the organisation that represents 154,000 of the UK’s 234,000 registered working doctors that is likely to erupt at its annual conference later this month.The union is also under fire for failing to acknowlede that it had awarded the hikes, which has sparked a major internal row in the ranks of the organisation that represents 154,000 of the UK’s 234,000 registered working doctors that is likely to erupt at its annual conference later this month.
The rises were only narrowly approved, by a 15-11 vote, by members of the BMA’s ruling council after strong arguments were raised against it. Although the vote took place in November, the union had not announced or acknowledged the rises, or told its membership about them, until the Guardian asked for further details, even though they came into force on 1 January.The rises were only narrowly approved, by a 15-11 vote, by members of the BMA’s ruling council after strong arguments were raised against it. Although the vote took place in November, the union had not announced or acknowledged the rises, or told its membership about them, until the Guardian asked for further details, even though they came into force on 1 January.
“I find it quite extraordinary. It’s over the top and it’s unjustified,” said Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat leadership candidate who was a health minister until the election. “How can they do this at a time when all the people they represent are having to accept the consequences of significant restraint and often real terms reductions in their pay? It’s staggering and it beggars belief.”“I find it quite extraordinary. It’s over the top and it’s unjustified,” said Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat leadership candidate who was a health minister until the election. “How can they do this at a time when all the people they represent are having to accept the consequences of significant restraint and often real terms reductions in their pay? It’s staggering and it beggars belief.”
“It looks bad and it’s quite a snub to the membership. The best thing is [for the BMA] to rethink this and go back to the original levels of 2014, which in the chair of council’s case [£88,320] is still significantly above an MP’s salary [£67,060].”“It looks bad and it’s quite a snub to the membership. The best thing is [for the BMA] to rethink this and go back to the original levels of 2014, which in the chair of council’s case [£88,320] is still significantly above an MP’s salary [£67,060].”
Porter’s new salary is almost three times an MP’s, added Lamb, who has pledged to refuse or donate to charity the controversial 10% pay rise which the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has recommended for MPs.Porter’s new salary is almost three times an MP’s, added Lamb, who has pledged to refuse or donate to charity the controversial 10% pay rise which the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has recommended for MPs.
Six of the seven chief officers have been given the cash equivalent of a “clinical excellence” or merit rise, which some NHS hospital consultants receive in recognition of outstanding work, as part of their new package. For example, Porter’s £171,692 is based on the salary a senior consultant would earn plus a platinum clinical excellence award, which is worth £75,796.Six of the seven chief officers have been given the cash equivalent of a “clinical excellence” or merit rise, which some NHS hospital consultants receive in recognition of outstanding work, as part of their new package. For example, Porter’s £171,692 is based on the salary a senior consultant would earn plus a platinum clinical excellence award, which is worth £75,796.
Dr Andrew Dearden, the BMA’s treasurer and a GP, and Dr Ian Wilson, the chair of the union’s representative body and a hospital pain specialist, were both awarded a pro rata share of a silver clinical excellence award, worth £46,644. And the chairs of the BMA in the three Celtic countries will each receive a pro rata element of a bronze award, worth £35,484.Dr Andrew Dearden, the BMA’s treasurer and a GP, and Dr Ian Wilson, the chair of the union’s representative body and a hospital pain specialist, were both awarded a pro rata share of a silver clinical excellence award, worth £46,644. And the chairs of the BMA in the three Celtic countries will each receive a pro rata element of a bronze award, worth £35,484.
“This is scandalous. You shouldn’t accept such big hikes when your members are really struggling and not getting a penny. This was morally wrong,” said one BMA council member. Another said: “There was significant dissent among council members uneasy about this.” A third said that although the posts did involve time-consuming workloads, the increases were still too big.“This is scandalous. You shouldn’t accept such big hikes when your members are really struggling and not getting a penny. This was morally wrong,” said one BMA council member. Another said: “There was significant dissent among council members uneasy about this.” A third said that although the posts did involve time-consuming workloads, the increases were still too big.
One council member said that although the BMA was a private organisation rather than a public body, it is funded by subscriptions – typically £443 a year – from doctors working mainly within the NHS, and thus should take more account of the real-terms drop in their income in recent years.One council member said that although the BMA was a private organisation rather than a public body, it is funded by subscriptions – typically £443 a year – from doctors working mainly within the NHS, and thus should take more account of the real-terms drop in their income in recent years.
The briefing paper explains that the bigger salaries are “part of the process of modernisation of the BMA, recognising the ever-increasing demands on the BMA’s chief officers” and are intended to ensure that top talent from within the medical profession take on senior BMA jobs. Those roles include negotiating with ministers and dealing with the media.The briefing paper explains that the bigger salaries are “part of the process of modernisation of the BMA, recognising the ever-increasing demands on the BMA’s chief officers” and are intended to ensure that top talent from within the medical profession take on senior BMA jobs. Those roles include negotiating with ministers and dealing with the media.
Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, declined to comment. But a senior government source criticised the BMA’s decision as misguided and wrong, especially as it comes when most doctors have had no or small pay rises since 2010 as part of an NHS efficiency drive.Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, declined to comment. But a senior government source criticised the BMA’s decision as misguided and wrong, especially as it comes when most doctors have had no or small pay rises since 2010 as part of an NHS efficiency drive.
“Awarding huge salary increases in secret to very senior members of the BMA, at a time of pay restraint in the health service, is misguided and wrong, and does a disservice to doctors around the country working hard for their patients. Instead of attacking our plans to ensure everyone can get a GP appointment seven days a week, the BMA should get its own house in order,” the source said.“Awarding huge salary increases in secret to very senior members of the BMA, at a time of pay restraint in the health service, is misguided and wrong, and does a disservice to doctors around the country working hard for their patients. Instead of attacking our plans to ensure everyone can get a GP appointment seven days a week, the BMA should get its own house in order,” the source said.
The briefing paper, given to council members before the decisive meeting in November, makes clear that the BMA’s remuneration committee proposed the rises after taking advice from external experts in how much senior officers should be paid, given the skills and pressures involved.The briefing paper, given to council members before the decisive meeting in November, makes clear that the BMA’s remuneration committee proposed the rises after taking advice from external experts in how much senior officers should be paid, given the skills and pressures involved.
It says: “The recommended remuneration for these roles has been set after rigorous comparison of the external marketplace and gives full cognisance to levels of medical pay at the upper end of the scale. This is because post-holders are giving up medical pay to undertake these very senior posts within the profession.It says: “The recommended remuneration for these roles has been set after rigorous comparison of the external marketplace and gives full cognisance to levels of medical pay at the upper end of the scale. This is because post-holders are giving up medical pay to undertake these very senior posts within the profession.
“This review recognises that the BMA chief officer posts, and the chairmanship of BMA council in particular, are not only the pinnacles of a doctor’s medico-political career but that such posts are recognised leadership posts at the top of the profession, not only in the UK but internationally too,” it added.“This review recognises that the BMA chief officer posts, and the chairmanship of BMA council in particular, are not only the pinnacles of a doctor’s medico-political career but that such posts are recognised leadership posts at the top of the profession, not only in the UK but internationally too,” it added.
A BMA Spokesman said:A BMA Spokesman said:
“As the recognised leaders of their profession the BMA’s Chief Officers are active, practising doctors. For some, holding such a position has become itself a full-time role. It is only right that these increasing demands are appropriately recognised.“As the recognised leaders of their profession the BMA’s Chief Officers are active, practising doctors. For some, holding such a position has become itself a full-time role. It is only right that these increasing demands are appropriately recognised.
BMA Council and its remuneration committee made its decision in 2014 – without the input or even the presence of those officers affected. In most cases some of the financial package is paid to the doctors’ employers in order to release them to attend work on behalf of the profession.BMA Council and its remuneration committee made its decision in 2014 – without the input or even the presence of those officers affected. In most cases some of the financial package is paid to the doctors’ employers in order to release them to attend work on behalf of the profession.
“If we are to have the right people in the job, it is vital that they are not discouraged from doing so because of financial penalties. The levels of pay were recommended by the BMA’s Remuneration Committee, independent of the Chief Officers, with oversight from the BMA’s Audit Committee and the Oversight and Finance Committee.”“If we are to have the right people in the job, it is vital that they are not discouraged from doing so because of financial penalties. The levels of pay were recommended by the BMA’s Remuneration Committee, independent of the Chief Officers, with oversight from the BMA’s Audit Committee and the Oversight and Finance Committee.”
• This footnote was appended on 11 June 2015 to make clear that while Dr Mark Porter’s salary was reported as £171,692 that is not what he receives. This is in fact the upper limit for the role. The BMA have told us that of that sum Dr Porter receives only £40,000 directly. A further £54,000 is paid to Dr Porter’s NHS Trust to compensate it for the three days he works as chair of the BMA and he forgoes the other £77,000.