REFORMS TO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION SCHEMESTHE government is finalising details of its reforms to public service pension schemes, due to be implemented from April 2015.

Prospect members in the main schemes agreed to the reforms in ballots in 2012, after a protracted series of negotiations.

Industrial action on 30 November, 2011 also saw the government significantly improve its reform proposals.

Since the agreements, the reforms have been progressed in a number of ways:

● the Public Sector Pension Act 2013 provides the statutory framework for the main reforms

● detailed regulations implementing the remaining provisions have been consulted on and are expected to be laid before Parliament shortly

● provisions have been made to allow members who are subject to privatisation to stay in their public service pension scheme

● work has progressed on baseline actuarial valuations against which future changes in costs will be assessed under cost-capping mechanisms.

Members within 10 years of pension age – 55 or above in the Nuvos scheme or 50 or above in the other sections of the PCSPS

– on 1 April, 2012 will stay in their existing pension scheme.

Members between 10-13.5 years of pension age will have a choice to stay in their existing scheme beyond April 2015 (up to February 2022) or move into the new pension arrangements immediately.

This option is likely to be open later in 2014 and Prospect will provide support to members in this position. All other members will move over to the new pension arrangements from April 2015.

Although pension benefits from April 2015 have been agreed by Prospect members, the

contribution increases imposed by the government have not.

Prospect has put much effort into minimising the contribution increases that may be faced by some in April 2015.

A particularly difficult aspect of the civil service pension arrangements from April 2015 will involve moving members on two different contribution structures into a single structure.

The overall average contribution rate will remain the same, so this will mean lower contributions for some Prospect members but also a fourth year of contribution increases for others.

Check-off deadlineCIVIL service departments have been told by the Cabinet Office to review their check-off arrangements for payment of union subscriptions by the end of January. Departments were advised that the arrangements were ‘undesirable’ and must make a case to retain them.

Deputy general secretary Leslie Manasseh said: “There is no good reason to abolish check-off which is a simple, low cost means of paying union subs. But some departments are likely to withdraw it. To avoid your employer terminating your union membership in this way, We are encouraging members to transfer to direct debit.”

This can be done simply and securely on our website at www.prospect.org.uk/direct_debit

“A Prospect pilot last year demonstrated that members need to see a real threat before they are prepared to make the change to direct debit. That threat is now real in some places,” said Manasseh.

Staff survey tells story of low moraleTHE HEADLINE results from the 2013 survey of over 270,000 civil servants does not make happy reading for the Cabinet Office or civil service head, Sir Bob Kerslake – despite his positive spin on the outcomes.

By any measure, the results are disappointing and tell a story of low morale and lack of confidence in leadership.

Deputy general secretary, Leslie Manasseh said: “I have made the point to the Cabinet Office that such low scores on pay and benefits; leadership and change management; and employee engagement would be seen as a major threat to competitive advantage in the private sector and will cause major operational problems as the economy begins to turn and job opportunities increase.

“The large and growing pay gap with the private sector for many of our members will only exacerbate this problem. Of course the government is ambivalent about operational shortcomings across

departments. On the one hand it doesn’t like them, but on the other they can be used to strengthen the case for privatisation.”

Prospect believes, in the run-up to the general election, that all political parties need a positive evidence-based narrative for the civil service.

■■ The■full■survey■results■can■be■found■at:■http://bit.ly/csps2013report

■■ The■survey■results■will■not■make■happy■reading■for■Sir■Bob■Kerslake

JANE M

ING

AY/REX

PUBLICEYEProspect members in public service

www.prospect.org.uk • Issue 1, February 2014

Prospect • PublicEye – February 2014

HEALTH AND SAFETY REPS HAVE THEIR SAYTHIS year’s health and safety conference will take place in March in London. Speakers include three academics well known for their health and safety expertise: Cary Cooper, an expert in stress-related issues; David Walters who brings an international health and safety perspective, and Phil Taylor, author of “The

tyranny of performance management.”

Sarah Veale, TUC head of equality and employment rights, will also be there to bring her practical and political experience to the speaking line-up. Veale is also an HSE board member, so will be able to share her views on the future of the HSE.

The union is also organising a SNAP survey of health and safety reps. Prospect health and safety officer Sarah Page said: “We want to know how active you are, how much support is given by employers, how much training you’ve had and any obstacles encountered by you while undertaking your duties.”

Lords debate civil serviceTHE IMPARTIALITY and continuity of the civil service was highlighted in a House of Lords debate in January.

Many former civil servants and members who have worked with the civil service praised its expertise and professionalism, and the diversity it has achieved in its workforce. Lords also warned it needed to adapt to the needs of the times and continue to recruit the best people.

Concern was raised about ministerial criticism of the civil service, an increase in political special advisers and political input into the selection of senior civil servants. The debate heard that these may compromise the ability of civil servants to ‘speak truth to power.’

Speakers also pressed the govern-ment over setting up a parliamentary commission on the future of the civil service.

■■ http://bit.ly/LordsCSdebate

MEMBERS AT the UK Hydrographic Office are voting on industrial action short of a strike over pay . The branch had an offer for 2013 pay imposed by management.

UKHO deemed progression was not contractual, leaving 78 per cent of staff below their grade maximum and 33 per cent on the bottom step of their pay grade.

The 2013 offer was in line with Treasury guidance and comprised a 1 per cent revalorisation of salaries, a 1 per cent non-consolidated payment to all staff and non-consolidated performance pay for slightly less than 25 per cent of staff. The offer was rejected by members in a ballot.

Negotiator Helen Stevens said she believed progression issues could be resolved and that UKHO could afford

further pay improvements but is bound by government policy.

“The branch has now decided to mount a pay campaign of which

industrial action will be a part.“The overarching aim is to

achieve a new pay system,” said Stevens.

“It is recognised that this will take some time.

We want to allow members to express their feelings

and demonstrate the adverse impact the government’s pay

policy is having on the morale of members and staff.”

Mapping out a new pay system

STEFANO

CAGN

ON

I

RECRUIT A MEMBERThe more members we have – the stronger our voice. Ask your colleagues to join us at www.prospect.org.uk/join or call 020 7902 6600 for more details.

Learning focusCIVIL service departments are to focus on four main skills areas after a civil service learning skills review reported back to the Cabinet Office. Departments must now build leading and managing change, commercial skills, digital skills and project delivery into their capability and departmental improvement plans.

Trade union sides should have the opportunity to discuss these plans and how the priorities are incorporated – especially training for specialist grades.

Prospect has already expressed its concerns to Civil Service Learning that the competency framework does not adequately reflect the skills, knowledge or experience of specialist grades. CSL says that heads of profession are now working on a plan to fit their own competency plans into the overall strategic competency framework.

Published by Prospect, New Prospect House, 8 Leake Street, London SE1 7NN

PublicEye editor: Graham Stewart e graham.stewart@ prospect.org.uk t 020 7902 6605

Printed by: College Hill Press

Prospect • PublicEye – February 2014

2 NEWS

■■ Above,■Prospect■legal■officer■Linda■Sohawon,■Wendy■Wilson■(FDA)■and■Prospect■negotiator■John■Higgins.■Prospect■and■other■unions■at■the■House■of■Commons■had■a■date■in■the■High■Court■in■January■as■they■sought■to■claw■back■£6m■in■lost■pay■for■their■members■from■the■House■of■Commons■Commission.■The■unions■claim■that■the■failure■to■pay■staff■their■annual■increments■is■a■breach■of■contract.■The■court■found■against■the■unions,■who■are■now■considering■an■appeal■to■the■Court■of■Appeal.

PROSPECT MEMBERS in the civil service are facing a new performance management process, with line managers under pressure to deliver a forced distribution of performance markings

If not challenged, the process may be used to force managed exits and drive down pay. Prospect is challenging this approach. The advice is for: affected staff on how to deal with performance management and what to do if you think a rating is unjustified and for line managers on how to ensure fairness in the performance management process, and how to address pressure from above to impose forced distribution.

Prospect’s concernsIn most cases, the new systems have been introduced without meaningful consultation and without Prospect’s agreement.

Prospect supports systems that are focused on improving performance in a positive way, for example by focusing on the development of staff. However, our experience is that appraisal systems introduced under the guise of performance management are vulnerable to abuse and frequently used negatively to impose penalties of one

form or another. Prospect is not surprised that this has quickly become a

key issue for civil servants. The union has grave concerns that the new procedures incorporate the worst aspects of performance management, including:

● a forced distribution of performance markings, requiring 10-25 per cent of staff to be categorised as ‘must improve’

● an opaque ‘validation’ process that involves ‘levelling’ performance ratings relative to others in a peer group, irrespective of whether standards have been met

● the removal of non-consolidated bonuses from all but the top 25 per cent of performers.

These features, if not closely monitored and challenged, can be used to force managed exits from an organisation and to drive down pay. As we know from experience in the senior civil service, they also obscure any relationship between performance and reward and exacerbate equal pay problems.

This is a far cry from the idea of performance management as a way to improve the effectiveness of organisations by developing staff. Positive performance management is based on clarity and transparency, an ethos of mutuality, consent and shared decision-making.

The reality is all too often a regime of performance management that Professor Phil Taylor from the University of Strathclyde has accurately described as a “new workplace tyranny”.

There are already strong warning signals from within

Performance management in the civil service

Prospect’s new advice for members and line managers aims to ensure they don’t leave the outcome of their performance reviews to chance

■■ Members■can■see■the■guidance■at:■http://library.prospect.org.uk/id/2014/00056

■■ Sector■president,■Geoff■Fletcher■–■It■is■essential■that■members■are■aware■of■this■risk■and■take■action■to■avoid■it

Prospect • PublicEye – February 20143PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

the civil service. A survey of Prospect members in autumn 2013, to which 5,000 people responded, showed that most neither understand nor have confidence in the procedures. The survey showed:

● 37 per cent were clear about their performance objectives for the year

● 18 per cent were clear what they needed to do to be recognised as one of the top 25 per cent of performers

● 32 per cent were clear about what they needed to do to avoid being categorised as one of the bottom 10 per cent of performers

● 23 per cent were confident that the appraisal system would fairly assess their performance.

What we can doEvery member has a role to play. If you are unhappy with your appraisal outcome or performance rating, it needs to be challenged. And if you are aware of attempts to fix the distribution of ratings or to set targets for managed exits, you should tell your workplace representative or Prospect full-time officer.

Guarding against an unfair performance ratingIndividuals can help to defend themselves against an unfair mark by preparing thoroughly for any performance discussion – see Prospect’s ‘Members’ Guide to One to One Interviews’ – http://bit.ly/prospguide_onetoone

In addition, you should: ● Challenge any ‘must improve’ mark that you think

is unjustified. Don’t let things drift. If you act early and with advice from the union there is more chance of either

getting the mark changed or preventing a repetition. ● Use informal processes first to raise your concerns with

your line manager and, if needed, your countersigning manager. Do this in writing so you have a record .

● Always refer back to the standards that should have been set at the start of the year. Civil Service Employee Policy’s (CSEP) own guidance states that it is critical for managers to check that employees are aware of the level of performance required of them. Ideally, you will have agreed your objectives for the year with your line manager. If you do not agree your objectives, you should ensure that this has been recorded at the time. Also make sure that you

are content that any competency requirements set out on the appraisal form reflect the actual requirements of your job.

● Use examples of good work to illustrate your performance. Don’t wait for your formal performance

review to gain feedback. ● Ask for feedback on a regular basis – and make sure

you put the request in writing. Your procedure is likely to require in-year reviews so make sure that they happen and that a record is kept of the outcome.

● Probe alleged weaknesses and ask for examples, facts and figures. Ensure your manager provides an evidence-based and standards-based justification for your rating. Make sure, too, that you are provided with appropriate support to achieve the required standards. CSEP expects managers to “provide all reasonable help, support and encouragement to assist employees to reach and maintain the required standard of performance.”

● Challenge the unexpected. Your mark should not come

A forced distribution of performance markings, requiring 10-25 per cent of staff to be categorised as ‘must improve’

Prospect • PublicEye – February 2014

4 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

as a surprise, especially since the CSEP has mandated at least three performance discussions a year.

● Ensure that a record is kept of changes to performance ratings as part of the so-called validation process, together with the supporting evidence. If you are told your mark was changed at validation, you should then ask for it to be disclosed.

Appealing against performance appraisalRemember to contact your Prospect rep for advice and support. If you cannot achieve a satisfactory resolution informally, you should appeal against your performance appraisal.

Equally, if your appraisal outcome is such that it triggers a formal performance improvement stage, you should exercise your right of appeal. There should be three stages to the formal challenge process and at each stage there is one right of appeal either against procedural errors or against the decision made.

Prospect’s ‘Members’ Guide to Appealing against performance appraisal’ http://library.prospect.org.uk/id/2004/00004 provides step-by-step guidance. In addition:

● There should be a minimum of three performance discussions a year to cover: objective setting, a mid-year review and end-of-year review. These should be open, unbiased and factual, supported by evidence gathered by the employee.

● Although objectives can be reviewed throughout the year, new objectives and standards should not be applied retrospectively.

● Performance ratings should be awarded on the basis of fact, not opinion, with each decision justified by evidence in a performance management report.

Improving performance – addressing development needs or managed exitsIN cases where there is a genuine development need, a plan should be drawn up to address this. The countersigning manager has a responsibility to ensure that line managers and employees take the appropriate action. This process should be positive and set out any coaching, training and support that will be offered. It should also cover timescales for improvement.

The one-month norm for improvement identified in CSEP’s procedure for managing poor performance may not be adequate to demonstrate improvement in the professional and specialist roles undertaken by Prospect members. If so, your workplace rep should be able to help to negotiate a more realistic timescale.

Preventing bias Public sector employers have a positive duty to promote equality and this also applies to the operation of appraisal and performance systems.

Recent experience in the civil service suggests systemic bias against some of these protected groups when it comes to performance markings and performance pay. The new performance management regime is likely to aggravate this. Appraising managers should have received diversity training.

Working patternsJob standards and performance levels should be applied consistently against all work modes and contractual hours of work.

As a general principle, the level of performance expected should be the same for those working flexibly, such as homeworkers or agile workers, as for fixed-office workers, and the same for full-time workers as for part-time workers or job sharers. Appraising managers should apply this principle fairly and consistently.

Recent experience in the civil service suggests systemic bias against part-time workers when it comes to performance markings and

performance pay. Again, the new performance management regime is likely to aggravate this.

Disability: reasonable adjustmentsA reasonable adjustment involves making a change to the way of working to ensure fairness to an individual who would otherwise be disadvantaged by a disability. It may mean departing from usual practice or providing additional support to allow an individual to carry out a task or fulfil a role.

This could be by changing the method of working, tools used or the working environment. Where a ‘reasonable adjustment’ has

been made, certain capabilities or job standards, normally expected as part of a specific role, may be disregarded – both in the in the job design and as measured in the performance management cycle.

Prospect’s ‘RSS Equality Briefing 32 Disability Discrimination and Appraisal & Performance Systems’ provides more detailed advice on discrimination in this context – http://library.prospect.org.uk/id/2013/01192

Questions to askIn judging whether an adjustment is appropriate, the following questions should be asked:

● Which capabilities and standards are perceived as difficult for the individual to perform or demonstrate?

● Can other support mechanisms be put in place to help the individual perform or demonstrate these elements, for example training or physical adjustments?

● If not, can these elements be reasonably omitted from the overall job requirement?

● Can other elements of the role be increased to ensure reasonable job size and contribution to the business?

● How long should the adjustment remain in place?

● How and with what regularity will this be reviewed?

Public sector employers have a positive duty to promote equality and this also applies to the operation of appraisal and performance systems

Prospect • PublicEye – February 20145PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

ADVICE FOR MEMBERS WHO ARE LINE MANAGERSTHE expectation to deliver an expected distribution of marks clearly puts pressure on line managers. We know from experience that members in line management roles need advice about how to respond to pressure to mark employees down or instigate performance improvement procedures – especially when this is not justified by the evidence – in order to fit a forced distribution.

It can be difficult to stand up to such pressure, especially if you feel isolated or have been faced the threat that a failure to comply will affect your own performance rating or lead to you to being put on a ‘poor performance’ procedure.

CSEP guidance makes it clear that a leadership/people management objective is mandatory as a key objective for civil service generic grades HEO and equivalent to Grade 6.

Line managers should adopt the following guidelines:

● Ensure that you are trained to conduct performance appraisals, including equality training, to ensure fair and consistent treatment of all staff. Evidence from a number of civil service employers shows bias in appraisal against staff from black and minority

ethnic backgrounds, with disabilities and who work part time.

● Take time to satisfy yourself that agreed objectives are SMART and within the control of the postholder to achieve.

● Work with the postholder to ensure that any identified development needs are addressed.

● Ensure that your assessments are evidence-based and recorded in writing.

● Challenge any aspects of the performance management procedure, including validation, that are unclear or appear to foster unfairness or inconsistency. Make sure that there is an audit trail of any queries you raise and the responses received.

● Ensure that you are also trained to manage performance improvement processes if called

upon to do so. If you are asked to allocate performance rating according to a forced distribution, you should consider doing the following:

● Explain to whoever is the source of the pressure that if performance rankings become disconnected from individuals’ actual performance, genuine performance problems can’t be addressed effectively.

● Ask for the instruction to be put in writing.

● If the pressure continues, email the person concerned confirming the content of the conversation.

● Remind an appropriate senior manager that forcing marks without evidence could constitute harassment and bullying, which could be subject to disciplinary action.

● Ask what stance the organisation will take if a member of staff makes a complaint about actions taken by you to comply with the employer’s requirement to achieve a forced distribution of performance marks.

■■ If■you■are■unsure■of■who■to■approach■for■advice,■please■email■performancemanagement@prospect.org.uk

● CSEP indicates that it may be useful to record the main points of performance discussions. Prospect’s advice is to make sure that there is a written record of all discussions. If verbal comments are made about your performance but the person concerned refuses to confirm them in writing, you should consider sending an email to clarify your understanding of the discussion.

● You should not be marked down just because you are new to a job. Any employee with fewer than 60 working days in their role at the end of the reporting year should not be assessed. Staff absent due to maternity, adoption or pregnancy related reasons should be marked as having ‘met’ their objectives.

● The validation process is unclear, since departments have discretion to decide which group of employees it applies to and who should represent the employee’s interests at the validation meeting. The scope for inconsistency and subjectivity is considerable, so it would be appropriate to ask for justification of the process adopted.

● Further, CSEP’s rationale for validation is that “it ensures performance distribution between colleagues and peer groups and allows departments to apply guided distribution”. Bluntly, the meaning of this is difficult to understand. Neither is it clear why individuals should be marked down solely on the basis of their relative/peer-to-peer performance, particularly if their SMART objectives have been achieved.

● It is unclear how widely the so-called ‘performance wave’ is being used to assess performance, but this is also open to challenge. CSEP’s performance management procedure acknowledges that the performance category ‘met’ is wide-ranging, from verging on needing improvement or exceeding in some areas to generally satisfactory.

● CSEP states that equal weighting should be given to delivering objectives and demonstrating behaviours, competencies and values. Yet behaviours and values are extremely difficult to evidence objectively. The core competency framework that is most widely applied patently does not reflect the professional competencies of many Prospect members.

Line managers need advice about how to respond to pressure to mark employees down or instigate performance improvement procedures

Prospect • PublicEye – February 2014

6 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

INBRIEFWelsh public sector inquiry – The Public Accounts Committee is inquiring into senior management pay across the Welsh public sector. It says it will consider accountability and transparency issues, the decision making process, the method for agreeing increases and the quality of data.

Major contracts review – The government has published two reports following anoma-lies in the billing practices under the Ministry of Justice’s electronic monitoring con-tracts with Serco and G4S.

The cross-government review examined 28 of the largest contracts held by Serco and G4S worth £5.9bn in total. The recommendations from this review will build on work to establish a Crown commercial service and professionalise procurement under the lead-ership of the newly-created chief procurement officer in the Cabinet Office.

Back to the future – Those with a long memory will remember the Property Services Agency. It was pri-vatised in the 1990s. A new Crown Commerical Service is to be created on 1 April. In addition to staff from the

government’s procurement service, it is likely to comprise staff from various other government departments, including transport, work and pensions, some defence areas and communities and local government. Staff transfer-ring into the service will do so on TUPE terms. It will operate as a trading fund.

Time to talk day – Time to Talk Day on 6 February was part of a new advertising campaign, which aims to show that “it’s the little things which make a big difference“ when it comes to talking about mental health. Find out more at www.time-to-change.org.uk

A NEW charity that will retain the English Heritage name will be created in 2015 to run the National Heritage Collection, including Stonehenge, Kenwood House (pictured above), and Charles Darwin’s home in Kent.

The aim is for the new body to be self-financing by 2023. English Heritage’s responsibilities for protecting and conserving England’s historic environment will be delivered by a new body – Historic England and will remain – for the time being – an arm’s length government body.

The new charity will receive an £80m government grant to improve the properties it cares for and to invest in new exhibitions. It is claimed it will also raise millions from non-government sources.

However, some of the country’s most valuable historic sites are under threat because English Heritage is struggling to cope with a massive conservation backlog. The organisation’s conservation budget was frozen a decade ago, which has left parts of the collection in disrepair. At least £52m is needed to tackle the conservation defects across its sites.

In a consultation, ministers say that if a new funding model is not found for the organisation, there would be an “accelerated loss of historic fabric in public ownership.

“Lack of significant investment in the properties would compound the

problem of the deteriorating condition of the collection with a damaging impact on attendances and income.”

Prospect branch chair Sarah Reilly said: “Most staff in the national collections group will transfer to the new charity via TUPE when the time comes and will be subject to the usual consultation between English Heritage and the unions.

“The charity has a bold ambition to become self–financing in eight years, with grant in aid tapering off during that time. The plan is that increased visitor numbers, members and donations will realise this ambition.

Heritage conservation backlog needs millions

Prospect members are likely to have some concerns about this part of the proposal and the potential knock-on effect to Historic England should those projections not fulfil their promise.”

Prospect says this area will require more detailed examination. English Heritage should also remain the place of last resort for buildings and sites in desperate need of investment and attention. The union says this is a matter of public interest.

“Members will have questions on this, so we’re keen to make sure this is captured and forms part of the process,” said Reilly.

Hundreds of Prospect members in English Heritage are preparing for a major shake-up in their organisation

Prospect • PublicEye – February 2014NEWS 7

PROSPECT IS keeping the pressure on the Cabinet Office for an independent review of specialist pay

Despite the union calls for action on pay, the Cabinet Office has yet to concede the argument. It says instead that there are flexibilities in the existing arrangements that can be used to remedy the recruitment and retention problems across Prospect areas.

A letter from the CO says the latest Treasury remit guidance allows scope for departments to use funds allocated to non-consolidated payments to enhance consolidated pay rates to address these problems.

But, the CO does concede that there is a chance for progress on the skills, capability and professionalism agenda “where our objectives are more fully in alignment and welcomes union support for building professionalism across the service.”

Deputy general secretary Leslie Manasseh said: “While the letter offers little in the way of a review, it does open up the possibility of a dialogue on these topics, which may lead to a sensible discussion about pay.

“We were able to put together a credible case based on the number and extent of areas of skill shortage. It is important to maintain the pressure, by identifying further recruitment and retention problems due to the pay gap with the private sector.”

On the prospects for 2014 pay, Manasseh said the union can expect

Members feel unfairly treated and scapegoated and have called for a review of specialist pay

much the same approach in terms of pay restraint and further attempts to buy out contractual progression.

The autumn statement confirmed the intention to limit pay awards to an average of 1 per cent until 2015-16 and also referred to a pay bill control pilot in a number of government organisations – an attempt to give employers flexibility to use other ways of controlling pay bill costs to address recruitment and retention difficulties.

Elsewhere, scope for progress is likely to be restricted to using some of the performance pay pots to provide consolidated increases in excess of 1 per cent where there is an accepted business case for doing so and buying out contractual progression.

However, where progression is abolished but pay ranges remain, it is not clear how employers will deal

with a situation where employees doing the same job will be paid different salaries.

An option might be full performance pay, which replaces the across-the-board increases with an individual annual pay increase based on the current pay rate and appraisal marking. This offers differential increases and, in theory at least, the possibility of progression. Such systems are beset with problems in practice.

Manasseh said: “We will need to defend our members from these. There are three key ways of trying to do so: by arguing for an alternative approach based on a competency progression system; by building safeguards into the system; and by making the argument for equal pay and identifying and pursuing equal pay cases where appropriate.”

THE CASE FOR A SPECIALIST PAY REVIEWPROSPECT has told the Cabinet Office that the clear message from members is that they feel unfairly treated, wrongly scapegoated for the nation’s economic ills, and see no real evidence that their employer values them.

The benefits of an independent review of specialist pay are clear and include opportunities to:

● decouple the pay of

specialists from short-term political constraints

● consider objective evidence of pay rates for specialists across the economy

● align specialist pay to the challenges the service will face in the future

● build the confidence of spe-cialists in their pay arrangements to start to repair damaged morale and address recruitment and retention problems

● break down obstacles associated with fragmented pay systems that inhibit the movement of specialists across the service

● help build genuine professional communities as a route to enhance the knowledge and skills base across the service

● make the civil service an enduring employer of choice for specialists.

Keep up the pressure on pay

ELEANO

R BENTALL

■■ An■independent■pay■review■could■help■specialists■like■Tom■Heller,■(above)■at■the■Millennium■Seed■Bank■Project■at■the■Herbarium,■Kew■Gardens

Prospect • PublicEye – February 2014

8 SPECIALIST PAY