Kenneth Roy
Nicola and the doctors

When I first inquired into the affairs of that obscure body, the Scottish Advisory Committee for Distinction Awards (SACDA), I soon discovered that its public face – indeed its very name – had been carefully designed to conceal more than it ever revealed. Distinction awards for what?, I wondered. It became clear that they were for one profession and one profession only: a narrow group within the profession at that. They were awards recognising 'outstanding professional work' by NHS consultants – graded A+ (the elite), A and B. The names of the recipients – hundreds of them, with new names added each autumn – were listed on SACDA's website, but – surprise, surprise – there was no mention of actual dosh. This inevitably aroused suspicion that there was something inconvenient about the figures; either that the awards were embarrassingly small or embarrassingly large. I tended to favour the latter theory.
     So I sent an email to SACDA requesting a link on its website to the current value of each award. A few days later, NHS National Health Services (not SACDA) gave me the figures but no link to the website. My correspondent said that the site was being 'reviewed'. I replied that I no longer accepted what was claimed on the website – that these figures were there to be accessed. Later that day, NHS National Services added the figures to the site. I would describe the exchange of correspondence between us as cool in tone: I formed the impression that the people at SACDA were unaccustomed to awkward inquiries from journalists. But at least it is now possible to find out what the chaps in the white coats – there aren't many award-winning chapettes – receive on top of their basic salary. To be precise: A+, £75,889; A, £55,924; B, £31,959.
     I confess that, in my innocence, I imagined that these were one-off, good boy awards for older consultants (the average age of recipients is 51). I was not alone in this assumption; it was shared by at least one health correspondent who contacted this office. On the contrary: if, at the age of 51, you receive a distinction award of £75,889, you get it for life and it counts towards your pension. Assuming, then, that you retire at 65, your distinction award is worth a total of £1,062,446, a booty met from public funds. There is then the small matter of your salary – around £100,000 a year – and nothing in the rules to stop you doing private work as well. All in all, it is a hugely advantageous set-up, made all the more jolly by the composition of the committee dishing out the loot. It is heavily dominated by NHS consultants, all of whom are themselves beneficiaries of the scheme.
     After SR's initial revelations, a journalist from a national newspaper called us. We confirmed the information we had published, assured him it could be stood up. He sounded interested and said that he would be getting in touch with the Scottish Government. When he called back, he was less enthusiastic about the story. He said the Scottish Government had assured him that the bonuses went to the consultants' employers, the area health boards. I explained that, strictly speaking, this was true, but that the employers then passed on the money to the consultants as part of their salary. But the official briefing had implanted a doubt: I was not surprised when the newspaper in question failed to follow up SR's investigation. Perhaps the journalist could not accept that anyone would be paid a bonus of £76,000 a year, every year until retirement, from public funds. It does sound a little implausible. He had forgotten that we are dealing here with the NHS.
     The essentially secretive nature of SACDA has been only slightly dented by this magazine's insistence on basic transparency. Next to nothing is known about the committee's methodology. No adequate explanation has ever been offered for the very low number of female consultants (only 71 in the scheme's history) receiving distinction awards. And, of course, no other category of NHS staff is entitled to these awards: not the overworked junior doctors, nor the under-paid nurses. In its secrecy and its exclusivity, this scheme is a national disgrace, particularly at a time when the NHS is stretched to breaking point. We have argued for months that it ought to be radically amended or scrapped.
     That is why Nicola Sturgeon should be wholeheartedly supported for her proposal to abolish the scheme and replace it with a less expensive system which would reward staff across the health service. As a practicable starting point, the Scottish health secretary favours freezing next year's budget for the awards, not only in Scotland but throughout the UK so that one country does not gain a recruitment advantage over another. We go further and suggest that the scheme is suspended: that, while the annual bonus to existing award-winners is maintained pending review, no new awards are made this year. Gordon Brown's response to Nicola Sturgeon's initiative will be a test for the Prime Minister. Mr Brown has recently expressed his distaste for excessive pay at the top of the public sector. Will he now put his lack of money where his mouth is?