
BREAKING: Nurses reject NHS pay deal - and could join resident doctors on picket line
The Royal College of Nursing confirmed 91% of its members who voted rejected the 3.6% pay rise they have been granted for 2025/26. Nurses are furious that for the second year running they have been given less than resident doctors, who have been awarded 5.4% but still went on strike recently. President Professor Nicola Ranger previously labelled it 'grotesque' that nurses were again being awarded less than doctors.
Professor Ranger said: 'My profession feels deeply undervalued and that is why record numbers are telling the government to wake up, sense the urgency here and do what's right by them and by patients.
"Record numbers have delivered this verdict on a broken system that holds back nursing pay and careers and hampers the NHS.'
The vote to reject the pay offer included nurses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on a 56% turnout. The legal minimum in any follow-up vote over whether to strike is 50%.
The RCN said 170,000 nurses voted in its ballot in England, its highest ever, and is demanding ministers use the summer to reach a deal. Without an improved deal it will escalate to a dispute and an industrial action ballot which could see nurses strike in Autumn.
It comes shortly after a five-day strike by resident doctors which is expected to have caused thousands of cancelled appointments. Details on the number of appointments, procedures and operations postponed are expected to be published later today(THUR).
NHS leaders fear that Mr Streeting could face a full-scale NHS rebellion after other health unions also rejected their pay deals. The Unite union, which has members in almost all NHS professions, and GMB, which represents staff including ambulance workers, have both rejected the 3.6% pay deal in recent weeks.
Most NHS staff on the main Agenda for Change contract - which excludes doctors and dentists - have been awarded a 3.6% increase for 2025/26. This uplift was recommended by the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB) based on evidence submitted by the government, employers and unions. However unions have questioned the impartiality of the pay review body.
The current annual inflation rate for the Retail Price Index (RPI) in the UK is 4.4%. The latest UK Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate - which excludes mortgage costs - is 3.6%.
The RCN is understood to be open to talks on wider pay structures and quicker career progression, not just headline pay. The union says the pay banding in the Agenda for Change system unfairly traps nurses in lower bands, in some cases for their whole careers.
Prof Ranger added: 'As a safety-critical profession, keeping hold of experienced nursing staff is fundamentally a safety issue and key to the government's own vision for the NHS. Long-overdue reforms to nursing career progression and the NHS pay structure aren't just about fairness and equity but are critical for patient safety.
'We deliver the vast majority of care in every service and deserve to be valued for all our skill, knowledge and experience. To avoid formal escalation, the government must be true to its word and negotiate on reforms of the outdated pay structure which traps nursing staff at the same band their entire career.'
Mr Streeting is expected to restart talks with the British Medical Association early next week to avert further strikes by resident doctors. Their unanimous vote to strike - on a 55% turnout - means the BMA's resident doctors committee has a legal mandate to organise strikes until January 2025.
The Government is adamant it cannot increase headline pay but could find other solutions such as reduced doctor training costs and improved working conditions. Doctors are demanding a commitment to return to 2008 levels of pay, saying they will accept this over a number of years. The BMA argues that by the RPI Measure of inflation resident doctors' real terms salaries are down a fifth since then.
Kemi Badenoch has pledged to outlaw strikes by doctors, bringing them into line with the police and army, if she becomes prime minister.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
4 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Government urged to crack down on ‘exploitative' baby formula marketing
Liberal Democrat MP Jess Brown-Fuller, chairwoman of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Infant Feeding, has said new parents face inflated prices and unfounded health claims on packaging. Firms are also 'exploiting a legal loophole' to circumvent rules about the advertising of formula, she added, and offering their product to hospitals at discounted rates, giving parents the impression of an NHS recommendation. The Chichester MP is raising concerns after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a formula market study report earlier this year highlighting a number of issues, including misleading marketing, information gaps and cost impacts on low-income families. Formula manufacturers increased prices by an average of 25% in the two years up to November 2023 and they remain at near record highs. Parents often believe that a higher price tag means a more nutritious formula for their baby, despite regulations requiring all formula on the market to be nutritionally equivalent. Ms Brown-Fuller told the PA news agency: 'There are parents who believe that by buying the more expensive formula, they are supporting their child's feeding or growth or potential more when actually all of those milks are nutritionally equivalent.' There are even reports of parents buying more expensive formula but using fewer scoops per bottle to try and make it last longer, which Ms Brown-Fuller branded 'dangerous'. These parents are doing what they think is best for their children, she said, when in reality there is 'no difference' between the £14 tub and £7 tub of formula. The Liberal Democrat noted that companies will use their packaging to 'imply a nutritional superiority', with phrases like 'nutritionally complete' or 'supports a healthy immune system'. She asked: 'Where is the evidence that suggests that that formula is in any way a boost to an infant's immune system above any others?' Meanwhile, other formulas will write 'with added…' and name ingredients like Omega 3, certain vitamins, or iron. Ms Brown-Fuller said: 'It has to have a certain number of nutrients in it anyway. And anything that is additional potentially shouldn't be in there because they are working around a very strict compliance code.' She explained: 'They wouldn't be able to make these bold claims if they were a medication but, because it's a food, it's a source of nutrition, they're not held to the same standards.' Meanwhile, it is illegal to advertise newborn formula in the UK but firms are allowed to advertise follow-on milk for babies that are six months and older. This is because World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance is that breast milk should be the main source of nutrition for all infants until they are six months old, and a lack of advertising regulation is linked to lower breastfeeding rates. Ms Brown-Fuller said: 'There is a direct correlation between countries that have no regulation around formula marketing and drastic reductions in breastfeeding. 'So that is why the Government did introduce regulation around advertising of formula milk because the numbers of breastfeeding mothers was dramatically reducing.' The UK scores just 48 out of 100 overall on a range of infant-feeding metrics, according to the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative. However, to get around these regulations, formula companies advertise for their follow-on milk and 'make all their packaging look exactly the same to anybody that was just perusing the shelves'. The Chichester MP said: 'They're exploiting a legal loophole, because it is a legal loophole, but they've totally blurred the lines through similar branding.' Another form of 'exploitative' marketing, she argued, is that formula companies will sell their formula into healthcare professional environments like maternity units or neonatal units for a hugely reduced price. Purchase habits show strong brand loyalty when it comes to formula, with parents rarely switching brands once they have introduced a particular one to their baby. It is also argued that brand presence in a healthcare setting gives the 'fake impression of an NHS endorsement'. Ms Brown-Fuller told PA: 'They know that if they get the parents to use that in a hospital setting, the likelihood is that that is the formula they will then use when they go home.' The CMA has put forward 11 recommendations to address these issues, aiming to strengthen labelling and advertising rules, better inform parents to make choices in retail environments and to eliminate brand influence in healthcare settings with standardised packaging. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'As part of our Plan for Change, we're determined to ensure every child has the best start to life. 'There are many benefits of breastfeeding but for those mothers that cannot or choose not to breastfeed, it is vital parents can access infant formula that is affordable and high quality. Families should not be paying over the odds to feed their babies. 'We are working closely with the devolved governments to carefully consider the CMA's recommendations and will respond fully in due course.'


North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government urged to crack down on ‘exploitative' baby formula marketing
Liberal Democrat MP Jess Brown-Fuller, chairwoman of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Infant Feeding, has said new parents face inflated prices and unfounded health claims on packaging. Firms are also 'exploiting a legal loophole' to circumvent rules about the advertising of formula, she added, and offering their product to hospitals at discounted rates, giving parents the impression of an NHS recommendation. The Chichester MP is raising concerns after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a formula market study report earlier this year highlighting a number of issues, including misleading marketing, information gaps and cost impacts on low-income families. Formula manufacturers increased prices by an average of 25% in the two years up to November 2023 and they remain at near record highs. Parents often believe that a higher price tag means a more nutritious formula for their baby, despite regulations requiring all formula on the market to be nutritionally equivalent. Ms Brown-Fuller told the PA news agency: 'There are parents who believe that by buying the more expensive formula, they are supporting their child's feeding or growth or potential more when actually all of those milks are nutritionally equivalent.' There are even reports of parents buying more expensive formula but using fewer scoops per bottle to try and make it last longer, which Ms Brown-Fuller branded 'dangerous'. These parents are doing what they think is best for their children, she said, when in reality there is 'no difference' between the £14 tub and £7 tub of formula. The Liberal Democrat noted that companies will use their packaging to 'imply a nutritional superiority', with phrases like 'nutritionally complete' or 'supports a healthy immune system'. She asked: 'Where is the evidence that suggests that that formula is in any way a boost to an infant's immune system above any others?' Meanwhile, other formulas will write 'with added…' and name ingredients like Omega 3, certain vitamins, or iron. Ms Brown-Fuller said: 'It has to have a certain number of nutrients in it anyway. And anything that is additional potentially shouldn't be in there because they are working around a very strict compliance code.' She explained: 'They wouldn't be able to make these bold claims if they were a medication but, because it's a food, it's a source of nutrition, they're not held to the same standards.' Meanwhile, it is illegal to advertise newborn formula in the UK but firms are allowed to advertise follow-on milk for babies that are six months and older. This is because World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance is that breast milk should be the main source of nutrition for all infants until they are six months old, and a lack of advertising regulation is linked to lower breastfeeding rates. Ms Brown-Fuller said: 'There is a direct correlation between countries that have no regulation around formula marketing and drastic reductions in breastfeeding. 'So that is why the Government did introduce regulation around advertising of formula milk because the numbers of breastfeeding mothers was dramatically reducing.' The UK scores just 48 out of 100 overall on a range of infant-feeding metrics, according to the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative. However, to get around these regulations, formula companies advertise for their follow-on milk and 'make all their packaging look exactly the same to anybody that was just perusing the shelves'. The Chichester MP said: 'They're exploiting a legal loophole, because it is a legal loophole, but they've totally blurred the lines through similar branding.' Another form of 'exploitative' marketing, she argued, is that formula companies will sell their formula into healthcare professional environments like maternity units or neonatal units for a hugely reduced price. Purchase habits show strong brand loyalty when it comes to formula, with parents rarely switching brands once they have introduced a particular one to their baby. It is also argued that brand presence in a healthcare setting gives the 'fake impression of an NHS endorsement'. Ms Brown-Fuller told PA: 'They know that if they get the parents to use that in a hospital setting, the likelihood is that that is the formula they will then use when they go home.' The CMA has put forward 11 recommendations to address these issues, aiming to strengthen labelling and advertising rules, better inform parents to make choices in retail environments and to eliminate brand influence in healthcare settings with standardised packaging. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'As part of our Plan for Change, we're determined to ensure every child has the best start to life. 'There are many benefits of breastfeeding but for those mothers that cannot or choose not to breastfeed, it is vital parents can access infant formula that is affordable and high quality. Families should not be paying over the odds to feed their babies. 'We are working closely with the devolved governments to carefully consider the CMA's recommendations and will respond fully in due course.'


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Government urged to crack down on ‘exploitative' baby formula marketing
Liberal Democrat MP Jess Brown-Fuller, chairwoman of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Infant Feeding, has said new parents face inflated prices and unfounded health claims on packaging. Firms are also 'exploiting a legal loophole' to circumvent rules about the advertising of formula, she added, and offering their product to hospitals at discounted rates, giving parents the impression of an NHS recommendation. The Chichester MP is raising concerns after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a formula market study report earlier this year highlighting a number of issues, including misleading marketing, information gaps and cost impacts on low-income families. Formula manufacturers increased prices by an average of 25% in the two years up to November 2023 and they remain at near record highs. Parents often believe that a higher price tag means a more nutritious formula for their baby, despite regulations requiring all formula on the market to be nutritionally equivalent. Ms Brown-Fuller told the PA news agency: 'There are parents who believe that by buying the more expensive formula, they are supporting their child's feeding or growth or potential more when actually all of those milks are nutritionally equivalent.' There are even reports of parents buying more expensive formula but using fewer scoops per bottle to try and make it last longer, which Ms Brown-Fuller branded 'dangerous'. These parents are doing what they think is best for their children, she said, when in reality there is 'no difference' between the £14 tub and £7 tub of formula. The Liberal Democrat noted that companies will use their packaging to 'imply a nutritional superiority', with phrases like 'nutritionally complete' or 'supports a healthy immune system'. She asked: 'Where is the evidence that suggests that that formula is in any way a boost to an infant's immune system above any others?' Meanwhile, other formulas will write 'with added…' and name ingredients like Omega 3, certain vitamins, or iron. Ms Brown-Fuller said: 'It has to have a certain number of nutrients in it anyway. And anything that is additional potentially shouldn't be in there because they are working around a very strict compliance code.' She explained: 'They wouldn't be able to make these bold claims if they were a medication but, because it's a food, it's a source of nutrition, they're not held to the same standards.' Meanwhile, it is illegal to advertise newborn formula in the UK but firms are allowed to advertise follow-on milk for babies that are six months and older. This is because World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance is that breast milk should be the main source of nutrition for all infants until they are six months old, and a lack of advertising regulation is linked to lower breastfeeding rates. Ms Brown-Fuller said: 'There is a direct correlation between countries that have no regulation around formula marketing and drastic reductions in breastfeeding. 'So that is why the Government did introduce regulation around advertising of formula milk because the numbers of breastfeeding mothers was dramatically reducing.' The UK scores just 48 out of 100 overall on a range of infant-feeding metrics, according to the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative. However, to get around these regulations, formula companies advertise for their follow-on milk and 'make all their packaging look exactly the same to anybody that was just perusing the shelves'. The Chichester MP said: 'They're exploiting a legal loophole, because it is a legal loophole, but they've totally blurred the lines through similar branding.' Another form of 'exploitative' marketing, she argued, is that formula companies will sell their formula into healthcare professional environments like maternity units or neonatal units for a hugely reduced price. Purchase habits show strong brand loyalty when it comes to formula, with parents rarely switching brands once they have introduced a particular one to their baby. It is also argued that brand presence in a healthcare setting gives the 'fake impression of an NHS endorsement'. Ms Brown-Fuller told PA: 'They know that if they get the parents to use that in a hospital setting, the likelihood is that that is the formula they will then use when they go home.' The CMA has put forward 11 recommendations to address these issues, aiming to strengthen labelling and advertising rules, better inform parents to make choices in retail environments and to eliminate brand influence in healthcare settings with standardised packaging. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'As part of our Plan for Change, we're determined to ensure every child has the best start to life. 'There are many benefits of breastfeeding but for those mothers that cannot or choose not to breastfeed, it is vital parents can access infant formula that is affordable and high quality. Families should not be paying over the odds to feed their babies. 'We are working closely with the devolved governments to carefully consider the CMA's recommendations and will respond fully in due course.'