Conferences

Pay restoration in Scotland: A Munro to climb

Conferences, Opinion, Pay

At the BMA’s Junior Doctors Conference this month (7th May 2022) members from all 4 UK nations voted overwhelmingly to demand full real-terms pay restoration to 2008 levels by supporting the motion COMP 1 (pictured). In real terms junior doctors working in England are paid around 25% less than their equivalent colleagues were 14 years ago. In nations such as Scotland where devolved governments set public sector pay policy, despite pay awards often being higher percentages than those given in England, pay erosion is actually even worse.

The reasons for pay parity with 2008 have been laid out before but, put simply, we all know in our gut that we are not worth only three quarters of what our colleagues were during the financial crash of the 2000s. If anything the job has got more technical and responsibilities have increased, even if what we take home at the end of the month hasn’t.

Demands for full pay restoration have not materialised overnight and come off the back of work that the Broad Left- and more recently and visibly the Doctors Vote campaign- have been doing. In May 2021 we achieved BMA policy of demanding a 15% pay rise to take us halfway there. But, in Scotland, we never even made it this far.

As pay is set by the government in Edinburgh, so is BMA policy for pay and negotiations in Scotland. The Scottish Junior Doctors Committee of 2020/21 voted not to adopt the 15% goal and instead decided to stick to the status quo that has already led to more than a decade of stagnant or swindled income. 

Traditionally, BMA Scotland presents evidence to the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration Body (DDRB) in a united, pan-Scotland way with a single pay demand. For the 2022 pay round this was “inflation plus 2%”. There are some positives to this: linking pay to inflation was a significant policy position made at this conference for UKJDC and, if permanently linked to RPI, would stop our pay being eroded by political choices that lead to high rates of inflation. 

However a pay rise of 2% in real terms is shamefully inadequate given the years of erosion already imposed. Our pay has dropped around 30% in 14 years and, with BMA Scotland’s current goal, it would take us 14 years again before our pay approached the 2008 baseline. This is longer than an entire training pathway for many juniors!

So, what do we do about it? There is something we can all do immediately, but more of the work needs to be done over the medium to long-term so we can build a movement capable of winning an ambitious- but ultimately achievable- demand. 

Bluntly, we are at least a year behind our colleagues south of the border in terms of securing our worth.  We have not invested the time or resources into educating our members about pay erosion that both UKJDC and grassroots online groups have done. We need regular and useful comms output to help bring Scottish doctors with us; this includes social media, physical media in workplaces, a pay loss calculator hosted on BMA sites.

A first step towards this is an online pay Q&A on June 8th (sign up here Online Event Registration Form). A high turnout will be noticed by elected reps and will be further proof that we want more radical action on pay and are willing to turn out and spend our time to make our voices heard. The new Email your MSPs template has space to customise the message, which we can use to wake up our Holyrood representatives to the fact they have been degrading our pay- and the health service as a result- for years. The analysis lined up for these two tools looks thorough and useful so engagement with them, viewing them as a launchpad for more, is worthwhile.

But beyond this we need to keep telling SJDC that pay is our priority. Email your reps, find them in your workplace and make it clear that our members support the conference position of seeking full pay restoration; it will help current reps deflect criticism that a focus on pay is unhelpful and not representative of our members, some of the critiques levelled at pro-restoration reps in Scotland.

Over the next year, we must re-examine our relationship with the DDRB. English junior doctors have not engaged with it for years as it is broken and in desperate need of reform. This year English consultants took this position too, striking another blow to the DDRB’s legitimacy in its current form. Scottish doctors still present evidence to the DDRB and turn up to talks with them. This undermines our English colleagues and wins absolutely nothing for us; the Scottish government has ignored even the paltry increases they’ve recommended in the past and probably will again. By walking away and eventually negotiating directly with the Scottish government until it is reformed, we reclaim power from the bureaucrats and send a message that our union is alive and kicking.

We do not act in a vacuum and SJDC need to be taking note of the mandate given by conference for planning radical action in England. We need to immediately commence a campaign to prepare, educate and organise rank and file junior doctors in Scotland so that we are adequately prepared to support our colleagues in the event of English industrial action. Besides being the right thing to do, winning in England will pile the pressure on the Scottish government to keep up, else they face an exodus of junior doctors southwards. Solidarity with any ballot and subsequent industrial action will give us a blueprint and help to inform any action Scottish doctors may need to take in the future, when nothing should be off the table.

But finally and imminently, you have the power to change all this. Across Scotland, regional BMA committees for juniors- LNCJDSs- are chronically underfilled as engagement is rock bottom. But who’s really surprised given the stresses of the pandemic and the seeming inertia in some crucial areas?

Stand for these committees and then stand for a seat on SJDC, or stand for one of the two seats in the upcoming national SJDC elections. Information about election timetables should be made available soon- they will open at the end of July, so follow your Broad Left reps and BMA Scotland accounts on Twitter.

Now is the time to take an active role in our union, or even to re-join it. If you’re excited by the progress being made in England, help us harness that momentum north of the border and make meaningful steps towards proper pay restoration. We are not worth less than our peers in England, so make sure we are not complicit in demanding any less than them- any less than we deserve.

Nationalise Care Homes – ARM

Conferences, Opinion, Terms and Conditions

Author: Giancarlo Bell

This is the fifth of several pieces arising from the ARM 2019, explaining our positions on the debates which occurred there.

Motion 90 ARM 2019.

Britain should nationalise its extensive network of private care homes so that the vulnerable residents of these establishments can benefit from the improved standards of care afforded by the staff and systems of the NHS. Nationalisation could also provide better regulation, improved working conditions, and higher pay for the millions of workers in the social care sector, as well as offering better integration between social care and NHS medical care processes. This was the crux of Motion 90, submitted by North East Regional Council at ARM 2019. While the Broad Left was firmly supportive of this motion, the room at ARM was divided, with many representatives questioning whether bringing social care into the NHS was the right strategy to improve falling standards. Despite the strength of the opposition presented at ARM, the Broad Left are delighted that the motion passed in all parts.

Before the recession, care homes were regarded as bulletproof investments for private equity firms. The British population was ageing, and so thousands more elderly people could be churned out into the private care system every year with a premium hanging over their heads – profit for the care home bosses. This perceived stability provoked increasingly risky financial investments and a series of reckless economic expansions, subsidised with the money of taxpayers and the savings of our elderly population. No company better embodied this story than Southern Cross, formerly the UK’s largest social care provider with a peak of 31,000 residents in 750 homes [i]. They followed the tried-and-tested pattern outlined above, with a constant cycle of buying and selling new properties and pushing into new markets. After the credit crunch, Southern Cross was hit by rising rents, decreased expenditure by councils, and falling property prices. They responded by squeezing employee pay and decreasing the quality of care provided to postpone their inevitable decline [ii].

Our elderly friends, loved ones, and colleagues should not be at the mercy of neoliberal market forces. We are a wealthy country, and we should guarantee a basic standard of living for everyone. While doctors in general, and BMA members especially, believe in a publicly funded NHS which is free at the point of delivery, these values are more contentious when it comes to social care. There has been something of a shift in the Overton window in this instance. While almost 200,000 of the half a million care home beds in the UK were operated by the NHS or local authorities in 1990, this number has dwindled to about 30,000 [i]. The public accepts the dogma that the state provides health care; while the private sector provides social care.

By bringing care homes into the public sector we can equalise the huge variation in standards of care seen across the care home industry. The private operators’ main motive is profit; the care of their residents is a secondary priority. As such, we have seen dwindling standards of care, and a growing incidence of neglect and abuse at care homes across the country [iii]. At ARM, opponents of Motion 90 argued that the care homes which scored most positively under the scrutiny of CQC review were small, privately run establishments. This may work out nicely for the people who can afford to live in such homes, but the working class are left to fend for themselves in those cheaper, often poorly run care homes with low-paid, overworked staff, because staying in a top-quality care home when nursing care is required can cost as much as £55,000/year [iv]. We would not accept such inequality in healthcare.

Employees in the care sector are at breaking point. They are working longer hours, for less pay, and with fewer benefits than their colleagues working in NHS hospitals. They also receive less training and are frequently employed on unstable zero-hour contracts with little in the way of career progression [v]. By bringing care into the NHS, we can employ care home workers on humane terms, with the pay and conditions they deserve, which will subsequently improve the standard of care they are capable of delivering.

Medical wards in NHS hospitals across the country are burdened with the complex issue of ‘acopia’ and ‘social admissions’. There has been fierce debate about the validity of these terms and about how to solve the issues underlying these admissions, but nationalising care homes could be an important step towards a solution. If care homes were provided on a universal, free basis like healthcare, and their staff were part of a wider, integrated NHS system, then elderly patients who are unable to cope at home could be admitted to somewhere to truly meet their needs, rather than taking up a costly hospital bed. This could save our NHS a significant sum of money.

Now that this motion has made it through ARM, the BMA should be unerring in its support for nationalising care homes. We must show that we believe in a humane standard of care regardless of class background, that we stand for health and social care which is comprehensive, universal, and free at the point of delivery. We must show solidarity with the workers in the care home sector. Our elderly population, and the workers looking after them, deserve better than to be treated as pawns in the games played by private equity firms.

[i] https://www.socialist.net/britains-care-homes-in-crisis-nationalise-them-now.htm

[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/jul/16/southern-cross-incurable-sick-business-model

[iii] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/abuse-care-home-cqc-autism-learning-disability-whorlton-hall-police-a8969026.html

[iv] https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/care-home-or-home-care

[v] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/care-home-workers-half-leave-jobs-within-year-staffing-levels-problem-report-communities-and-local-a7658281.html

Knife Crime is a Public Health Issue – ARM

Conferences, Opinion

Author: Adaeze Chikwe

This is the fourth of several pieces arising from the ARM 2019, explaining our positions on the debates which occurred there.

Motion 87 ARM 2019. 87 a, b and care for reference and were not debated.

The Broad Left supported this motion which passed unanimously.

Knife crime is an ever-growing epidemic in the UK, with rates reaching record level during 2018. According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of killings due to knife crime in 2018 were 732, one of the highest rates ever recorded in the UK(1). Unfortunately, the response to this epidemic by both the government and the Home Office so far fails to combat the issue by only focusing on reactionary policing and criminalisation, rather than preventative measures.

The solution we see unsuccessfully rehashed year upon year by the government is the use of ‘stop and search’, where pedestrians are stopped by the police at random on the streets, often on the basis of preconceptions and stereotypes about the race and gender of supposed perpetrators of knife crime. According to the Home Office, black people are 40 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched(2). Official responses and rhetoric reinforce the ignorant and damaging stereotypes already placed on the heads of black people, such as that black people are criminals and more likely to partake in violent behaviour.

Although stop and searches may be successful in the short-term, this solution does nothing to stop offenders carrying knives on the street again at a later date, and instead increases the frustration and lack of belief in the police force from particular groups of people wrongly targeted for stop and searches repeatedly.

Knife crime is a public health issue.

We recognise that to truly make a dent in this rising wall of knife crime, a more grassroots approach needs to be undertaken where organisations and charities go directly into communities to find out why some people (often young adults) feel that carrying knives on the street is their only option, and intervene in the early stages before attacks can be carried out. Furthermore, these organisations have a variety of functions such as providing positive guidance to young people who might not have had this guidance earlier on in life, providing first aid sessions that teach young people how to stem blood loss from a knife wound and helping young offenders find employment and further education when coming out of prison to prevent them from re-offending.

The motion called on the BMA, as a trade union for doctors, to recognise the role that healthcare has to play in combatting knife crime. Instead of taking a no-questions-asked approach whilst treating victims of knife crime and ushering them immediately out of the hospital doors once treated in order to free-up beds in our already over-stretched NHS, healthcare workers need the training to be able to sign-post victims towards services that can break the cycle of violence that often leads to re-attendance.

Additionally, we need further implementation of youth workers in trauma centres all around the country, such as those from the organisation ‘Redthread’ that work side by side with clinicians in hospitals to engage victims of knife crime directly from their hospital beds. Organisations like this take advantage of this time when victims are at their most vulnerable and reflective in order to have a greater effect and prevent re-attendance(3).

There is evidence that a grassroots approach to combatting knife crime is effective, as shown in Scotland. The Scottish ‘Violence Reduction Unit’ (VRU) implemented a variety of programmes that aimed to educate rather than castigate both the victims of knife crime and those at risk of partaking in knife crime. They launched a mentorship project in schools designed to educate young people about how to challenge offensive behaviour without using violence(4). The VRU have outreach teams in hospital emergency rooms to sign-post victims to services that can help them move on and rebuild their lives regardless of their circumstances. As a result of the efforts of these organisations, there has been a 39% decrease in homicides over the last decade.

If Scotland can reduce their knife crime levels, we can absolutely do the same in England and Wales.

Collectively bringing attention to this issue by promoting outreach and grassroots services will enable those at risk of partaking in knife crime to see that these programmes are available. We need to continue to pressure the government into prioritising the public health approach rather than rely solely on stop and searches. We can do this through the BMA and independently, by writing to MPs and starting petitions to have a greater proportion of money used to combat knife crime funnelled towards grassroots organisations and outreach services. Furthermore, we can raise awareness that these services are available in our communities and invite grassroots organisations to schools and youth clubs.

The knife crime epidemic, although experienced by few, needs to be acknowledged as a public health problem by all, whether you are from a community directly impacted by the effects of knife crime or not at all.

References:

  1. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2018
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/may/04/stop-and-search-new-row-racial-bias
  3. https://www.redthread.org.uk/what-we-do/#a&e
  4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45572691

What Union Should Medical Associate Professionals Be In?

Conferences, Opinion, Organising

Authors: Brocha Goode and Emma Runswick

This is the third of many pieces arising from the BMA’s Annual Representative Meeting 2019, explaining our position on the debates which occurred there.

Motion 108 ARM 2019

At the 2019 BMA ARM, supporters of the Broad Left brought forward a motion that the BMA should unionise Physician Associates (PAs), as well as other Medical Associate Professionals (MAPs), and create a branch of practice for MAPs within the BMA. It fell, save for the last part where the RB agreed to work with ‘groups’ representing PAs and MAPs in the future for the benefit of all. The main arguments against consisted of keeping the BMA a doctors’ union, and not wanting to ‘water down’ the role of the BMA in protecting the rights of doctors. Why did supporters of the Broad Left bring this motion forward?

Physician Associates and other Medical Associate Professionals

The role of the Physician Associate was created recently by the UK government as a potential solution to the workforce crisis created by the Modernising Medical Careers programme, which reduced the numbers of middle-grade doctors. University training programmes for PAs run across the UK, and they will soon join medical rotas in large numbers. We are told that in 10 years there will be 10,000 PAs working in the NHS. The role is ill-defined, but includes assessing patients, requesting investigations and creating management plans.

There is no specific trade union for PAs.

Other MAPs exist in smaller numbers in Surgery, Anaesthetics and Critical Care. Some groups have no direct entry, drawing only on highly qualified and experienced nurses. The Advanced Critical Care Practitioners are one such group. Some of these groups already have representation, many do not.

The Problem – We all need a union

It is important to separate the question of unionisation from your feelings about MAPs. It is no longer important whether you support or oppose PAs or MAPs as a concept. Individual interactions with PAs or other MAPs are irrelevant to the issue at hand. PAs exist.

They are workers. They are our colleagues. They are valued members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team. The concept of a PA comes from the USA, where it is a well-defined role separate to that of a doctor. In the UK, however, this is not the case – their roles often overlap with tasks traditionally performed by doctors. Their training, though shorter, is so similar that students share clinical skills sign-offs with medical students. NHS England has decided that their role is so similar to F1s that from August, PAs will be placed on some F1 tracks and rotas.

The current implementation of PAs by NHS managers and Universities has the potential for competition and conflict. We are already seeing concerns about training opportunities and worry about the poor differentiation of our roles by both professions. The position of the PA is also open to abuse. A person in a fluid role can be asked to take on more responsibility than they are trained or paid for. PAs have not yet been given prescribing rights or professional registration, yet they are asked to make management plans for patients. Doctors, who hold professional registration, must then ‘supervise’ and take the legal responsibility for these plans, without additional time. This situation is bad for PAs, for doctors, and for patients.

Misplaced resentment is growing between the professions, but these problems were not created by PAs. These problems were created by the poor definition of their role and poor implementation – these are problems created by the government and managers and the fault lies with them. Without representation by a strong established union, PAs may find themselves mistreated and exploited to the detriment of themselves, doctors and patients.

The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) as a Model

Similar issues were raised by nurses when Healthcare Assistants, and more recently Nursing Associates, were introduced. The Royal College of Nursing, the trade union and professional association for nurses, decided that the smartest way to deal with these issues was not to argue worker vs worker, but to fight together as union vs government. The RCN recruited these new staff groups into their union and won proper definition of those new roles. This ensured that Nursing Associates could not be asked to take on responsibility that they weren’t trained for and protected the role of the Registered Nurse.

The RCN recruit and organise Nursing Associates and Healthcare Assistants without accepting that the roles are equivalent to that of a Registered Nurse. The RCN maintains its role as a trade union and as a professional association whilst accepting members that do not have professional registration.

We should look at the RCN as a model. They know that division causes weakness, and unity gives strength. This strength allowed them to protect all groups of nursing staff. Their common needs as a nursing family trumped their differing qualifications.

Conflict and Commonality – Why the BMA?

In the BMA, we have several existing Branches of Practice with frequently conflicting views. We represent GP Partners and GP Salaried Doctors; Students and Academics; Consultants and Juniors. PAs, like these groups, are in the medical family, just like Nursing Associates are in the nursing family. Royal Colleges have accepted this. The GMC and the government both agree. We have more in common than that which divides us. Where conflicts between Branches of Practice occur, the BMA has systems to resolve that. These could be extended to include our colleagues from other professions.

 We shouldn’t leave PAs and other MAPs to seek piecemeal representation by the general unions operating in the NHS. If there was an existing union with enough MAP members for them to be effectively represented as a group, we would be advocating they join it. MAPs are currently spread across several unions, but mostly go without.

We also shouldn’t wait for years for them to form their own union with a fraction of the strength we have now, after the damage has been done. Asking MAPs to create a new union is a near impossible task and would suck up all their work for the foreseeable future. By the time they were set up and had gained negotiating rights all the big debates would be over, to the detriment of staff and patients. Furthermore, in separate unions, there would be no effective way of managing any conflicting interests between us.

That conflict has the potential to include use of one professional group against the other during industrial disputes. As it stands, PAs are a risk to doctors’ terms and conditions and doctors are a risk to PAs’. Doctors’ pay and PAs’ ability to refuse out-of-hours work could come under attack from management making unfavourable comparisons. Working together, that risk could be eliminated.

Solution

We should seek national recruitment, organisation and bargaining for Physicians Associates and other MAPs through the BMA, so we can work together for agreed and common goals including:

  • High quality training;
  • Professional registration for all members of the clinical workforce;
  • Adequate role differentiation, so one cannot be asked to do the job of the other during rota shortages or union disputes.

For many in the medical profession, this tastes bad. It tastes like an acceptance of medical understaffing, of reduction in training standards. Some argue that unionising MAPs puts the definition of a doctor, or of the BMA, at risk. The BMA was set up to define and defend the role of the registered medical practitioner. Now, the BMA needs to do so again.

How do we work to define our roles as separate on the MDT without working together? How do doctors and MAPs protect their roles and working conditions without the power of a strong well defined and well-funded union? Unionising is the right solution to the issues we face, and the only real solution right now.

The RCN has given us the model. We should be recruiting and unionising PAs. For similar reasons, we should recruit other MAPs, such as Surgical Care Practitioners or Anaesthetic Associates, that don’t have a trade union home. We cannot afford to let this snowball away.

Climate Emergency ARM

Conferences, News, Reports, reflections and accountability

Author: Marina Politis

This is the second of many pieces arising from the ARM 2019, explaining our positions on the debates which occurred there.

Motion 80 ARM 2019. 80a-e are for reference and were not debated.

Members of the Broad Left were in favour of this motion. We feel that it is very important for our union and the labour movement to to resist climate injustice and to take measures to halt our current climate crisis.

Between 2030 and 2050, there will be an additional 250,000 deaths a year due to malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress which can be attributed to climate change.[i] Since the 1960s, the annual number of natural disasters have tripled, resulting in over 60,000 deaths annually, the majority in developing countries. i Household and ambient air pollution cause a total of seven million deaths annually. i

These figures will only continue to rise. We cannot continue to sit back and be complacent when faced with a public health crisis of this magnitude. There are no innocent bystanders to ecocide.

Climate change is not the forlorn, emaciated polar bear who features as a cover star for the latest national geographic, but something that will affect all of us. It will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable members of society: children; the elderly; people with mental illness or physical disabilities; those who are less economically affluent and women. It will affect workers all over the world. Climate injustice is not just about equality for our planet, but concerns equality of all groups of people, and we must stop being silent.

The NHS is the UK’s largest public greenhouse gas emitter, which at four percent of emissions is equivalent to the UK airline industry.[ii] [iii] As our healthcare profession strives to save lives and improve quality of life, we need to make a significant contribution. Over a fifth of the NHS’ carbon footprint is contributed by pharmaceuticals, a significant proportion by Metered Dose Inhalers[iv]. Anaesthetic gases using CFCs could be switched for alternatives. The NHS has significant purchasing power which would enable it to influence change in the pharmaceutical industry and in many other sectors. Both products and practice needs to change.

In BMA lobbying and campaigning, we should consider how we can make a positive difference. The trust the public has in healthcare professionals, and the synergy between measures for public health and measures against climate change allows us to be leaders in this movement. Active travel, a reduced working week and high quality insulated housing should be on the priority list. We can also assist whilst seeking improved working conditions – could our work or university placements be organised better, to allow public or active transport? Could food provided for medical staff at night be locally sourced?

In our union, BMA expenses policies should be capped in terms of carbon emissions, rather than solely cost. The times of domestic flights to save a few hours on train journeys must end; and events such as the ARM too must reflect on the resources they use, from travel and food waste to disposable leaflets and power used for lighting.

Measures taken by the BMA, the NHS and the government must go beyond that what is currently being promised, and we can no longer say yes to tokenistic ‘tick-box’ policies and solutions. We need radical social reform instead of mere paper straws and graphic tees rebranded with “save the planet” slogans. Fundamentally, reorganisation of society is needed, with just transition for workers in the polluting industries. We must work with other trade unions to achieve this.

If change is not making us uncomfortable or challenging the way we currently go about our day-to-day lives, then we are simply not doing enough.

It is brilliant that this motion was heard, but we cannot let this close this pressing issue, but instead use it as a springboard to continue to demand more.

[i] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

[ii] https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/reports/thenhsif/what-if-carbon-neutral-nhs/

[iii] https://sustainablehealthcare.org.uk/blog/we-work-healthcare-%E2%80%93-course-we-care-about-carbon

[iv] https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/time-think-differently/trends-sustainable-services

BMJ Independence – ARM

Conferences, News, Opinion, Reports, reflections and accountability

Author: Chris Smith

This is the first of many pieces arising from the ARM 2019, explaining our positions on the debates which occurred there.

Motion 55 ARM 2019. 55a and 55b are for reference and were not debated.

We are delighted that this motion fell. Several Broad Left members had submitted speaker slips against the motion.

The proposer argued that the BMJ was damaging the BMA by publishing information about Spousal Expenses, sexism and so on. He argued that our members saw the BMJ as the ‘official mouthpiece’ of the BMA and that we therefore needed a Memorandum of Understanding to limit their editorial independence.

We believe it is the behaviours of members and representatives that has damaged the BMA, not the reporting of these issues. These issues show how completely necessary it is for the BMJ to be empowered to investigate and report on our shortcomings and failures, both for transparency of the union and so we can reflect and change when appropriate. The free press is important: it provides the disinfectant of sunlight.

The BMJ is internationally respected, with the 4th highest impact factor in the world. It is also a great boon for our members – the surplus provided to the BMA is in the millions. If the journal is sullied around the world by a memorandum which forces it to be a vehicle for BMA propaganda it will diminish trust in the journal and trust of the association.

The BMJ is, and should remain, a critical friend. This motion argued against a free and impartial press- a right enshrined internationally by documents such as the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. We believe the integrity of the BMJ should remain intact and will continue to argue that our trade union should not be meddling with a prestigious and editorially independent publication.

BMA Medical Students Conference Report 2019

Conferences, Reports, reflections and accountability

Author: Grace Allport

This year the BMA Medical Students Conference was hosted on the 12th and 13th of April, and an enormous number of progressive policies were passed. Organisation among Broad Left students helped us to win support for our position on several issues and ensured important motions were discussed.

Student Welfare and Finance

Conference committed to several new policies aimed at improving conditions for medical students, such as lobbying medical schools to reduce travel time to help ease time pressure, promoting communal spaces on regional placements, allocating time for physical activity and establishing mental health services for medical students. These motions are important to continuing the vital work the BMA does in supporting medical students and advocating for conditions which allow them to study medicine without compromising their mental and physical health.

A motion about performance enhancing drugs was opposed by the Broad Left. The motion called for BMA investigation into the use of illegal recreational and performance enhancing drugs, as well as the implementation of drug testing systems at medical schools. The proposal would have discriminated against students who took some drugs for medical reasons by forcing them to disclose their condition and treatments to the medical school and any agencies involved in the testing. We do not believe that the BMA should be advocating testing and punishing students in this way. After a short debate, the motion fell.

Conference also committed to lobby for maintenance loan access for students who chose to intercalate with a Master’s course rather than a Bachelors. This policy aims to increase the accessibility of intercalated Master’s degrees, especially to students from less economically privileged backgrounds. Kirush Naguleswaran, who spoke in favour of the policy, said, “Intercalation is a valuable part of a medical degree. Studying a Master’s degree equips you with additional skills and knowledge that is not necessarily covered in a Bachelors. Lack of financial support denies deserving candidates the chance to study subjects at a Master’s level.” She argued that the lack of financial access whilst a student lasted beyond university, highlighting the points awarded for Master’s degrees at specialty application.

Education

The UKMLA remains highly controversial and the Broad Left opposes its implementation in 2023. A proposal to recognise that it is too late oppose the UKMLA’s introduction was so unpopular that the conference voted, by an overwhelming majority, to have it removed from the agenda. Instead, the conference agreed to maintain its position of opposition and engagement to the UKMLA and restated its support for the red lines proposed by the Medical Students Committee.

Further policies were agreed by conference, including opposing the use of UKMLA scores in the application process for foundation training, seeking to prevent additional burdens on finals students in 2022 when the assessment will be trialled and seeking assurances that students could abstain from the trial without punishment. These are crucial to the role the BMA has of advocating for students and ensuring that their welfare is not compromised.

Equality and Access to Medicine

Unanimously, conference voted to support policies to address the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) attainment gap. The evidence that the gap is not due to ability, but systemic racism, has already been heard and accepted by the BMA. Majd Albakry said, “Although this matter has been addressed previously, we need a more action-specific plan as outlined by motion 52 that incites organisational and social change.” These measures included creation of an annual conference to tackle the issue, school-specific plans of action, and positive action to increase the number of BAME staff working in medical schools. The Broad Left supports these actions as part of our fight to ensure that all students receive fair education and assessment, and to end disadvantage on the grounds of race.

Conference also voted to establish liberation networks within the BMA. These networks aim to provide representation for members of minority groups. Each branch of practice would elect officers who identify as women, LGBTQ+, BAME or as living with a disability, who would then meet to discuss policy and representation. The motion was proposed by the Deputy Chair for Welfare of Medical Students Committee (MSC), Stephen Naulls, who said, “In situations where the BMA advocates for members with protected characteristics, I believe the voices of those members – and their lived experience – is pivotal to the discussions. I hope this just one step along the pathway to creating a more representative and member-led BMA.” While similar motions on liberation networks and officers have been proposed by Broad Left members in previous years, its passage now represents a win for the left and a reflection of the changing values of Medical Students Conference. The policy will now go to ARM to allow for the establishment of liberation officers across branches of practice beyond MSC.

After a passionate speech by Alessia Waller, of Swansea Medical School, conference supported lobbying the UK Foundation Programme to extend special circumstances applications to students who are pregnant or whose partner is pregnant. Although a protected characteristic, the UKFPO currently excludes pregnancy from special circumstances, which can cause a significant conflict in work-life balance of newly qualified doctors. “It negatively impacts students, mostly graduate students, and their ability to plan families,” Alessia said, “I know of two students in the year above me who’ve been affected.”

Conference voted unanimously in favour of a motion tackling sexism and sexual harassment within the BMA. This comes after sexist remarks were made by a member of the BMA towards a GP speaking at a national conference. Ella Burchill, of Kings College London, proposed the motion, giving personal examples of the sexism she has faced as a woman in medicine. “This is an issue very close to my heart,” she said, “I hope in the future, we can all be proud to work in an NHS which values the work we do as doctors and scientists, regardless of gender.”

Christine Cadman, a Bristol student, won strong support for a motion advocating Widening Participation in medicine measures for care leavers. “Care leavers face challenges that other students may not face, from financial difficulties, the lack of support from home or educational unit, to not having accommodation during summer holidays. This motion will ensure that care leavers will not only get the support and advice required to apply to medicine, but also the chance to thrive whilst studying medicine by offering information on summer time accommodation, bursaries and scholarships and summer school programmes.”

BMA and Union Policy

The conference committed to lobbying the BMA internally to affiliate with the Trade Unions council. Ciaran Kennedy, who proposed the motion, said, “I proposed the motion after seeing how the TUC lobbied for the 2007 smoking ban. I believe that with solidarity from the BMA, the TUC can further improve the health of all workers.” Despite being an organisation set up to collectively bargain for doctors and improve the conditions their employment, the BMA resisted the trade union label until 1971. The BMA has, at times, organised alongside the unions of the TUC, but it is not currently an affiliated union.

Additionally, conference voted to support recruiting physicians associates (PAs) into the BMA. Broad Left students argued in favour, recognising that unions should represent those who are alike in need, not just in qualification. Working together, we can ensure we can successfully advocate for both groups and seek safe staffing. Brocha Goode of the University of Manchester, who proposed the motion, said, “We shouldn’t leave PAs to seek piecemeal representation; we should seek national recruitment, organisation and bargaining for PAs through the British Medical Association. What we need is to work together with PAs, organising to define their role, solve problems and strengthen our union.”

Healthcare and Society

Conference committed to lobbying to ensure training of medical students to provide healthcare for the homeless, as well as lobbying health boards to ensure higher standards of care for homeless patients are introduced. The policy aims to improve the care that this highly vulnerable group in society receives. David Clayton of Glasgow University, who proposed the motion, said, “The BMA needs to be at the forefront of tackling the public health emergency of homeless deaths and healthcare exclusion and I’m glad to see the BMA support the recommendations from the Faculty for Homeless and Inclusion Health in our motion.”

Additionally, conference supported a motion which targeted homelessness more directly, supporting recognition of homelessness as a crisis manufactured by the housing industry and lobbying for more social housing, as well as taxes on the creation of luxury homes. These measures seek to end the crisis caused by the housing market, which creates an artificial scarcity of housing in order to inflate the value of property investments at the cost of the health of the economically disadvantaged.

The conference voted to support free movement for all workers, inside and beyond the EU, extending well beyond previous policy which called for maintenance of free movement for healthcare workers after Brexit only. Giancarlo Bell, whilst advocating EU free movement, told conference that the EU border was responsible for the deaths of thousands in the Mediterranean, and we should respond by making a different political choice. The policy is a significant commitment to an internationalist principle of free movement and a humanitarian response to the crises across the world. Its passage at conference reflects the increasing support the ideas of the left are gaining.

All quotations were received after the conference and represent the opinions of the individuals quoted. Not all quotes are from Broad Left members.