Additional funding announced for the clinical academic contract in England
6 May 2004/ Updated 14 May 2004
Clarification on backdated pay
Please note in respect of the announcement of additional funding for the clinical academic contract that the lack of funding for backpay between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 for additional programmed activities was not agreed with the BMA.
While we welcome the announcement of additional funding and the re-establishment of parity from 2004, the lapse in parity is unacceptable and we continue to make representations to the employers to correct this situation. Their position will undermine efforts to improve recruitment and retention in academic medicine and we are seeking an urgent meeting with the university employers and the health department to impress on them the importance of resourcing the academic contract appropriately.
Today (6 May 2004) the university employers have announced that additional funding has been made available to support the implementation of the clinical academic consultant contract in England.
In a letter to heads of medical schools, Martin Harris, Chair of the university employers’ Clinical Academic Staff Advisory Group said:
“I am pleased to announce that the DoH has agreed to provide a total of £15 million for 2004-05 and £17.8 million for 2005-06 via HEFCE for implementation of the consultant clinical academic contract for HEFCE-funded clinical academics. This is an appropriate figure which we are satisfied re-establishes and maintains parity between consultant clinical academics and their NHS colleagues”.
For those that are NHS-funded, Institutions will continue to re-charge NHS trust partners for the same proportion of costs as under the old contract arrangements.
The allocation of the additional funding to institutions is being determined by HEFCE at a meeting on 17 June, based on data from the contract implementation survey carried out by university employers earlier in the year. Practically, this is likely to mean a delay in the extra funding being available to individuals until July, but backdating of additional PAs should be available from 1 April 2004.
Unfortunately no further funding has been made available to support back pay for any additional programmed activities between 1 April 2003 and 1 April 2004; only the basic 10 PA contract is guaranteed. This was part of the agreement on additional funding reached between the Health Department and representatives of university employers. Of course some institutions may have been in a position to fund back pay for additional programmed activities to 1 April 2003 from their existing resources, but feedback received to date suggests that this is rare.
This announcement should mean that employers and staff can now proceed with job planning and agree job plans that recognise the work that is being done. There is no longer any reason for job plans to be artificially capped at ten programmed activities.
The position of academic general practitioners remains less clear and work continues on securing a contract appropriate for this group. Following a successful meeting between the BMA, Society for Academic Primary Care and university employers held in February, there is a consensus that the future arrangements for this group should reflect the arrangements applicable to consultant clinical academic staff. We shall be raising this matter formally with Ministers later on this month and we are hopeful of quick progress being made.
Thank you to those who provided feedback to the message posted earlier in the week.
Regards
Michael Rees