Unison's Health Service Group Executive AGM is over, and we're heading to Trowbridge for the Folk Festival and the start of our holiday.

I don't think I can write a full report of the meeting on my BlackBerry whilst driving down the M6 (I know, I know, I'm a diletante) but I will just comment on the most important debate: that on the question of re-opening year two of the three-year pay deal.

There was a unanimous view that the re-opener clause will almost certainly need to be triggered. There was little or no support for the idea of Unison trying to re-negotiate the first year increase.

Where there was debate was around the timetable we should be trying to follow, and the various possible outcomes to our request for re-opening, and how we would respond to those outcomes.

on the timetable I was worried that the initial timetable presented by the national officers of the union was too slow, and would leave us waiting for the government to decide about re-opening for far too long. It also left us unable to call action in the spring until after April 1st.

By the debate this morning, the proposals had been amended slightly following some discussion with the SGE members from the Eastern region. I proposed a different timetable, which tried to open up the possibility of healthworkers taking action alongside civil servants and teachers in November if the deal was not re-opened by then, or, if the deal is re-opened but the increase is not adequate then we would be taking action before, rather than after, April.

The majority of the SGE accepted Mike Jackson's view that such a timetable was unrealistic, and in hindsight I think I accept that they were right. I would have liked a faster timetable, but it may well be that the timetable we've actually settled on is the fastest one that can be made to work.

We will therefore be pressing the PRB and the government to ensure there is an announcement about whether or not 2009's pay rise will be re-opened no later than December 2008. And we will be expecting an announcement on the value of any revised figure so that we can agree a response to it at a special SGE meeting in the first week of March 2009.

The other contentious issue was how we would respond if the PRB itself decided not to ask for permission from the government to review the 2009 rate, as happened this year with the teachers' review body. Mike Jackson argued that we would have to respect the integrity of the PRB process and, in effect, accept the continuation of a below-inflation pay rise. I put an amendment challenging ths view and instead confirming that if the PRB refused to recognise our evidence as persuasive then we would move to an immediate industrial action ballot.

There was a good debate on this question, and on a vote of 21 to 15 the SGE accepted my amendment to the report. We are therefore clear that whether it is the PRB or the Government who frustrate our members' demands to see the pay rise re-opened for next year, any blocking of that demand will be met with a determined campaignn including industrial action. I'm very proud of the SGE adopting this position, and I hope it drives home to both the PRB and our employers that we are deadly serious about our members not beint forced to pay the price of rising inflation.

There was much else to decide, and I will produce a report of the whole meeting for members in the East Midlands as soon as we get home from our holiday. In the meantime members and branches should be taking the first steps in the campaign to force the re-opening of next year's pay rise. Materials to help with this should be coming out from head office very soon.