A recommended 1% pay rise for NHS staff has been called "pitiful and bitterly disappointing" by nursing union leaders who said the government was "dangerously out of touch" with health workers.
The figure, which covers 2021 and 2022, is contained in a Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) document for the NHS Pay Review Body.
A section read: "The government announced a pause in public sector pay rises for all workforces, with an exception for employees with basic full-time equivalent salaries of £24,000 or under and for the NHS.
"In settling the DHSC and NHS budget, the government assumed a headline pay award of 1% for NHS staff. Anything higher would require re-prioritisation."
Image:Nursing leaders have hit out at the government. File pic: istock
The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) said a pay award "as poor as this" would mean only an extra £3.50 per week take home pay for an experienced nurse.
Advertisement
"Nursing staff would feel they are being punished and made to pay for the cost of the pandemic. It is a political decision to underfund and undervalue nursing staff," said the RCN's chief executive, Dame Donna Kinnair.
She called the 1% figure "pitiful and bitterly disappointing" and the government was "dangerously out of touch with nursing staff, NHS workers and the public".
More from Covid-19
She added that "it is not a done deal but the government has revealed its hand for the first time" and "can expect a backlash from a million NHS workers".
"Taxpayers are supportive of a significant and fair pay rise for NHS workers - this year of all years. Nursing deserves a 12.5% increase."
Image:Chancellor Rishi Sunak has 'shamefully insulted every single member of NHS staff', said Labour's Jonathan Ashworth
Sara Gorton, head of health at the Unison union, said: "No wonder the chancellor had nothing to say about the NHS yesterday. A 1% pay rise is the worst kind of insult the government could give health workers who've given their absolute everything over the past year.
"The public will be horrified. Staff will think it's some kind of joke."
Labour's shadow health secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, said: "A pay cut for NHS staff is the ultimate kick in the teeth to our NHS heroes who have done so much to keep us safe over the past year.
"Rishi Sunak's promised to be open and honest with the public yet shamefully insults every single member of NHS staff sneaking out this announcement and failing to include any mention of NHS pay in the budget."
A government spokesperson said: "Over one million NHS staff continue to benefit from multi-year pay deals agreed with trade unions, which have delivered a pay rise of over 12% for newly qualified nurses and will increase junior doctors' pay scales by 8.2%.
"Pay rises in the rest of the public sector will be paused this year due to the challenging economic environment, but we will continue to provide pay rises for NHS workers, on top of a £513m investment in professional development and increased recruitment.
"That's with record numbers of doctors and 10,600 more nurses working in our NHS, and with nursing university applications up by over a third.
"The independent pay review bodies will report in late spring and we will consider their recommendations carefully when we receive them."
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "If you end up with a list of 45 areas where the funding is going in and 'by coincidence' 40 of them are where there is a Conservative MP, I think people would be saying, 'What's going on here? This looks fishy.'"
But Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "The criteria is entirely objective, looking at data, poverty, employment."
And the government wanted to level up the country in "a completely impartial way".
Chancellor Rishi Sunak, meanwhile, said: "The formula for the grant payments for the new fund is based on an index of economic need."
But that is certainly not the only factor.
Picking a shortlist
BBC News analysis found 56 constituencies would benefit, as some of the 45 towns cover multiple constituencies.
Of those, 47 have Conservative MPs, including 14 gained from Labour at the 2019 election.
The other nine have Labour MPs.
The Conservatives tend to do better in towns, though, with Labour support generally stronger in cities.
Sir Keir has called on the government to publish the full criteria.
But we already know quite a lot about why the towns were chosen.
The first step was to pick a shortlist of 101 towns, which would be invited to apply for £25m, or £50m in exceptional circumstances.
Ranking towns
Following concern about the lack of transparency in that process, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report setting out how the shortlist had been compiled.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials took a ranking of English towns by an Office for National Statistics (ONS) index of deprivation and then further ranked the 541 most deprived, about half of the total, using a formula based on:
income deprivation
skills deprivation
productivity (the amount produced per hour of work)
exposure to Brexit
exposure to economic shocks
level of private investment
eligibility for other government funding, which could be combined with Towns Fund money
The first four of those criteria were judged on official statistics and the last three on the judgement of officials.
Another factor was towns in more deprived areas were more likely to be shortlisted.
Setting priorities
The towns were then divided into priority groups:
high
medium
low
But the 40 high-priority towns did not necessarily have the highest scores based on the formula - some adjustments were made to ensure the most deprived areas in each region of England were included.
There were 318 medium-priority towns and 183 low.
The officials recommended ministers shortlist:
all 40 high priority
60 of the medium
none of the low
They also suggested the 15 biggest towns should be excluded because they could also be eligible for city funding.
But the ministers ignored the advice on the biggest towns, putting 10 of the 15 on the shortlist.
And the final shortlist comprised:
all 40 high priority
49 of the medium
12 of the low
In choosing these 12 low-priority towns, ministers used criteria other than scores devised by civil servants, including:
being on the coast
poor transport links or a good geographical spread of towns across a region
potential for investment or growth
Getty Images
Officials concluded the shortlist met Treasury rules for managing public money.
But it is clear there was considerable divergence from the formula devised by the civil servants.
We do not know exactly how the 45 winning towns were chosen from the 101 invited to apply.
But there were:
19 of the high priority
21 of the medium
five of the low
And the five low-priority towns, Cheadle, Leyland, Morley, Southport and Stocksbridge are all in constituencies with a Conservative MP.
The most striking choice was Cheadle.
It had the seventh lowest score on the MHCLG officials' list.
But ministers said it was primed for investment because of recent transport improvements in the area, as well as being strategically located between Stockport and Manchester Airport and having strong motorway links.
In a report on the process, the Public Accounts Committee of MPs said they were "not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others".
It added that: "The justification offered by ministers for selecting individual towns are vague and based on sweeping assumptions."
When season four of The Crown drew to a close on Netflix last year, many people thought they were in for a long wait before their next dose of royal drama.
That has all changed in recent weeks, as Harryand Meghan's highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey is set to be broadcast, and Buckingham Palace is investigating "very concerning" bullying complaints against the duchess.
Here, we look at the escalating row between the Sussexes and the palace.
During a teaser clip for their CBS interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan says: "I don't know how they could expect that, after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.
"And, if that comes with risk of losing things, I mean, I ... there is a lot that has been lost already."
Lawyers for the couple say The Times reports were based on "misleading and harmful misinformation".
Image:Harry and Meghan's interview with Oprah could be a difficult watch for the Royal Family
'History repeating'
On 1 March 2021 Prince Harry says he feared "history repeating itself" and the process of leaving royal life has been "unbelievably tough" for him and his wife Meghan.
The remarks come out in one of the first promo clips for the Oprah interview.
Harry says: "I'm just really relieved and happy to be sitting here talking to you with my wife by my side."
Image:Oprah Winfrey at Harry and Meghan's wedding in May 2018
As a photo is shown of him as a child with his mother, Princess Diana, he continues: "Because I can't begin to imagine what it must have been like for her going through this process by herself all those years ago, because it's been unbelievably tough for the two of us.
"But at least we have each other."
'Never walking away'
On 26 February 2021 Harry reveals in a candid interview with James Corden that he felt the need to step back from royal duties because of "toxic" stories about him in the British press.
"We all know what the British press can be like. And it was destroying my mental health. I was like... 'this is toxic'."
Harry says he did what "any husband and father would do - I need to get my family out of here".
'Never returning as working royals'
On 19 February 2021 it emerges that Harry and Meghan have told the Queen they will not return as working members of the Royal Family.
Buckingham Palace says the rest of the family is "saddened" by their decision" but they "remain much loved members of the family".
Sky's royal correspondent, Rhiannon Mills, says there appears to have been "tense discussions" behind the scenes and that the couple "don't sound happy" in their latest statement.
Image:The Queen was said to have been 'disappointed' by the Sussexes' decision to step back
With them stepping back permanently from royal duties, the palace says the Queen confirmed in writing that it is "not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service".
Harry and Meghan say in their statement that: "We can all live a life of service. Service is universal."
The Oprah interview announcement
Later in February, the Sussexes confirm they will give their first interview since stepping back from royal duties by sitting down with Oprah Winfrey.
Buckingham Palace say they will not be commenting on the Sussexes' decision to do the interview.
The announcement comes a day after the duke and duchess revealed they are expecting their second child.
The bombshell announcement that started it all: Harry and Meghan step back from royal duties
In January 2020, the Sussexes declare on Instagram that they will "step back" from their roles as working royals.
They say they will divide their time between the UK and North America and become financially independent.
Buckingham Palace warns the move will be "complicated" and take time.
It is later reported that the Queen is disappointed Harry and Meghan had failed to consult her about their decision.
Sky's royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills says: "I'm told that the statement was solely written by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - no senior members of the Royal Family were consulted before it was released."
The interview with Oprah, which will air in the US on Sunday and in the UK on Monday, is expected to detail Harry and Meghan's short period as working royals together before they stepped down for a life in the US.
In the 30-second teaser clip released by CBS, Oprah asks the duchess: "How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today?"
Meghan replies: "I don't know how they could expect that, after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us."
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit their roles as senior working royals in March 2020, and now live in California.
A report in the Times newspaper on Wednesday claimed the duchess faced a complaint made in October 2018, while the duke and duchess were living at Kensington Palace after their marriage in May of that year.
A leaked email sent from a staff member, which was published by the newspaper, alleges that Meghan drove two personal assistants out of the household. The report claims she undermined the confidence of a third member of staff.
In a statement later, Buckingham Palace - which is responsible for the hiring of royal staff - said it was "clearly very concerned about allegations in the Times" and its HR team would look into the circumstances outlined in the article.
"The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace."
The gloves have come off
If anyone thought Prince Harry and Meghan were going to restrict their criticism to the British media, a sector they have made clear they loathe, they should think again. "The Firm" - aka the Royal Family and its staff - is clearly in their sights.
This isn't directly about the allegations of bullying levelled at Meghan, and also to a lesser degree Harry. They were published after the interview was recorded. But the couple see the allegations as an example of how some people in the palace brief against them.
We'll have to wait for the interview to find out exactly what "falsehoods" the couple believe have been put out by the palace. The bullying allegations - which are vigorously denied by the couple - are being investigated.
But it's clear that the gloves have come off, and that the ties of family have not restrained the couple as they seek to put their side of the story.
Past and present royal employees are to be invited to speak in confidence about their experiences of working for Meghan as part of the investigation.
'Attack on her character'
The bullying allegations are denied by Meghan and Prince Harry.
A statement issued by Meghan's spokesman in response to the newspaper's story said: "The duchess is saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma.
"She is determined to continue her work building compassion around the world and will keep striving to set an example for doing what is right and doing what is good."
Author Anna Pasternak - who wrote a book on Princess Diana's affair with James Hewitt - said she thought "the whole issue stems to when Meghan first entered the Royal Family".
"I think she was naïve, she didn't really understand the monarchy or 'The Firm' as she rightly puts it, and the constricts of royal power. She was naive to think that she could modernise the monarchy, that she could have her voice and could do things her way," she told Radio 5 Live.
But Rachel C. Boyle, head of interdisciplinary studies at Leeds Beckett University, said the Oprah interview was "absolutely the right thing to do at this point".
"I feel like Meghan has not been given the opportunity to defend herself or to respond to any of the claims that have previously been made about her in the media, in a space that allows her to express herself."
Harpo Productions/Joe Pugliese
Meghan and Prince Harry's TV interview with Oprah will be aired on CBS in the US on the evening of Sunday 7 March.
In the UK, the interview will be screened on ITV at 21:00 GMT on Monday 8 March.
CBS has said Meghan will be interviewed about "stepping into life as a royal, marriage, motherhood" and "how she is handling life under intense public pressure".
She will then be joined by Prince Harry, and the couple will speak about their move to the US last year and their future plans.
Just hours before the interview is aired in the US, a special programme to celebrate Commonwealth Day will be broadcast on BBC One at 17:00 on Sunday 7 March.
A collective sigh of relief went around Nicola Sturgeon's team after she finished eight hours of questioning by MSPs.
The conclusion among Team Sturgeon was that there were no real punches landed; nothing which would be highly damaging - even fatal - for the first minster's position.
Good shift
That was the message from the Scottish Government ministers despatched on Thursday morning to make the first minister's case.
Constitutional Affairs minister Mike Russell praised the first minister's resilience on BBC radio, arguing Ms Sturgeon was honest about the mistakes made but clear that she would learn from them.
Mr Russell said Scots were in awe of her performance. Even the first minister's critics accepted she put in a good shift.
The ship, it is thought, has been steadied a bit. A vote of no confidence in the first minister won't pass at this stage - several people around Holyrood think the Scottish Tories moved too early.
But in the words of a senior ally of Ms Sturgeon: "I'm not under any illusion the story is going to go away - it's not."
Reuters
Opposition parties are still asking questions - and want more answers.
Firstly, over Ms Sturgeon's meetings with Alex Salmond.
The first minister previously said she forgot a meeting in Holyrood on 29 March 2018, where it is claimed she was first told about allegations against Mr Salmond. At that meeting, a private discussion with Mr Salmond was planned for a few days later at Ms Sturgeon's home.
But Ms Sturgeon originally told parliament she had found out about the allegations at the latter meeting - on the 2 April. There is still an allegation on the table that Ms Sturgeon broke the ministerial code by not revealing the first meeting earlier.
It also matters because if 2 April was government business - ie to discuss a government investigation - why did Ms Sturgeon not report it to senior civil servants?
Ms Sturgeon says she didn't want to compromise the investigation being carried out by the government, but others believe there are still holes in the story.
Why, opposition sources ask, did Ms Sturgeon not report her further private meetings with Mr Salmond when it was clear he was asking her about government business?
There's also the question of whether the name of a complainant was revealed by a Scottish government official.
Ms Sturgeon doesn't think it was.
She says Mr Salmond knew one of the names because he had previously apologised for his actions and found the other through looking at social media. But Mr Salmond's account of this is different - and appears to be backed up by others.
In the coming hours and days, you can expect to see more legal advice given to the Scottish government. Will it show anything new?
The committee continues to pore over messages between senior SNP figures, which Mr Salmond believes show there was a plot to "get" him.
So far, there doesn't appear to be a smoking gun, but Mr Salmond is adamant there is something there. Ms Sturgeon has said the idea is absurd.
Reuters
Mr Salmond has also sent supporting documents to the committee. Who would rule out hearing more from him in the coming days?
A lot in this case comes down to whom you believe - and your interpretation of complicated events. It isn't black and white.
There will, however, have to be some sort of finality to all of this before the election on 6 May.
The committee still intends to publish a full report on its long, complex inquiry before the Scottish parliament breaks up for the election.
The chances of a unanimous report seem pretty slim, but what will be said about the first minister's decisions?
Most crucial, however, will be the report from Ms Sturgeon's independent adviser on the ministerial code.
James Hamilton QC is continuing to speak to witnesses this week, but there's an expectation he too will deliver his conclusions this month.
This is likely to be the big moment where we get as close to a conclusion as possible.
Ms Sturgeon talked about the Hamilton conclusions several times during her evidence.
Senior figures in government believe that while the committee can be accused of having political motivations - Mr Hamilton can't and in that sense his conclusions can't be challenged.
When will that report come? Nobody really seems to know for sure.
