‘Not our role to negotiate GP contract’, says RCGP

The incoming RCGP chair has said ‘it is not the role’ of the college to negotiate the terms and conditions of the GP contract in England.

The RCGP was told this week that the Government wants to add it to a group of stakeholders to be consulted on the contract, replacing the usual negotiation with the BMA’s GP Committee.

However, GPs said the proposal had the risk of contravening the role of the college and risk damaging relationships between organisations.

In a statement this afternoon, the college distanced itself from the role of negotiator, but said it was willing to be consulted pending subject to full details of the proposal.

RCGP chair-elect Professor Victoria Tzortziou-Brown said: ‘We welcome the opportunity to contribute to any forthcoming consultation and to share the insights of our members.

‘It is important to clarify, however, that it is not the role of the RCGP to negotiate the terms and conditions of the GP contract; our contribution is through responding to government consultations and informing policy development, as we have done on aspects of the contract in previous years.’

However she added that the collect would ‘stand ready’ to contribute once the terms of what was being proposed became clear.

She said: ‘We await sight of the terms of reference for any proposed consultation to understand exactly what is being proposed, but we stand ready to feed in the views and experiences of our members with the aim of improving standards and ensuring the best possible patient care.’

This week, Pulse exclusively revealed the Government will overhaul the way it decides the terms of the GP contract in England starting with next year’s contract – significantly curbing the BMA’s role. 

The change will see wider group of stakeholders consulted on changes, including GPCE, the RCGP, the National Association of Primary Care (NAPC), Healthwatch England, the healthcare charity coalition National Voices and the NHS Confederation. 

On the prospect of the RCGP’s involvement, Essex LMCs chief executive Dr Brian Balmer said it would be inappropriate for the RCGP to accept any changed role and that doing so would threaten its relationship with the BMA. 

Dr Balmer told Pulse: ‘The RCGP should say “no thank you, it’s not our job”, because they don’t do contractual stuff or negotiations.  

‘If they start treading on the union’s toes, I think there’ll be all sorts of consequences. The two organisations are supposed to work side by side, but with a clear dividing line about whose remit is which.  

‘The way this has been worded did look as if the RCGP are collaborating with diminishing the value of the doctors’ trade union, and that’s not a good place to be.’

Professor Azeem Majeed, a GP and head of the Department of Primary Care and Public Health at Imperial College London, said involving too many groups could ‘slow down decision-making’ and ‘dilute the clarity of the negotiating process’.

Professor Majeed told Pulse the RCGP could advise the Government with ‘professional and clinical expertise’ rather than negotiate pay or contractual terms, but said even then there were ‘potential drawbacks’.

He said: ‘The college represents the professional standards and educational priorities of general practice, not the employment and contractual interests of GPs.

‘There is a risk that widening the group of stakeholders involved in contract negotiations could blur responsibilities, slow down decision-making, or dilute the clarity of the negotiating process. It may also place the RCGP in a challenging position if it is drawn into debates in areas such as industrial relations, which is not its core purpose.’

Meanwhile, the wider group of organisations asked to be consulted by the Government for next year’s GP contract largely welcomed the news.

A spokesperson for NAPC told Pulse the organisation was ‘well placed and happy to share the views of our members with the DHSC’. 

Jacob Lant, chief executive at National Voices, said the expansion of groups to be consulted beyond the BMA was ‘long overdue’. 

He told Pulse: ‘It is long overdue for a wider range of stakeholders to be involved in discussions about the future of the GP contract. Decisions of this scale must be shaped not only by professional bodies but by the people who use services every day. 

‘National Voices is glad to bring the experiences and priorities of our members and the patients they represent into this process. We look forward to working collaboratively to ensure the contract supports accessible, person-centred primary care for everyone.’ 

Meanwhile, Healthwatch England head of policy and research William Pett welcomed the opportunity to bring the concerns of ‘disadvantaged groups’ to contract negotiations:  

He told Pulse: ‘Access to GP services remains the most common concern we hear about. This affects communities across the country, but the greatest impact is felt by disadvantaged groups such as disabled people and those on lower incomes. 

‘We therefore welcome the opportunity to bring the experiences and concerns of patients into GP contract negotiations. By ensuring the patient voice is heard, the NHS can make services more patient‑centred and responsive to real needs.’ 

Ruth Rankine, primary care director at the NHS Confederation, told Pulse: ‘We look forward to working with the Government and other partners to inform the future contract as part of this consultation process. 

‘Primary care is made up of multidisciplinary teams that work together to deliver care for patients. With the focus on delivering the Government’s ambition of moving care closer to home through a neighbourhood health service we need to ensure that the future GP contract reflects the valuable role general practice has to play and support the collaboration that is needed across primary care as well as with the rest of the system in order to succeed.’ 

A breakdown of trust was behind the Government’s decision, as revealed by Pulse, and confirmed today by health secretary Wes Streeting.