NHS England and several Integrated Care Boards quietly adjusted their policy in late 2025, which changed the financial implications for NHS staff taking voluntary redundancy (VR). Specifically, they relaxed the rules regarding the "clawback" of redundancy payments. Staff who leave under the VR scheme no longer have to repay their redundancy money if they subsequently take a job in the wider government sector, outside of health. This policy shift, reported by outlets like HSJ, directly addresses previous concerns about overly strict exit terms and could potentially influence the number of staff who choose to leave the NHS.
Ministers are pushing for extensive cuts to administrative roles across NHSE and ICBs, eliminating tens of thousands of corporate positions. Securing Treasury approval for the necessary redundancy payments caused contention. Although the government provided central funding to manage the immediate financial impact, unions voiced concerns that the initial Voluntary Redundancy (VR) terms could unfairly penalise staff. Specifically, critics attacked rules allowing for wide clawbacks if staff returned to the public sector, arguing they could trap people in their current roles or force them to accept poor exit packages. The decision to relax this clawback rule for those moving into other government positions directly addresses one of these key concerns.
The change in redundancy terms offers a dual impact: for staff, it removes a financial barrier to Voluntary Redundancy, potentially making the exit more attractive, particularly for senior managers eyeing civil-service roles; for employers, while this might speed up necessary downsizing, it simultaneously risks accelerating the loss of seasoned programme leaders during a crucial transition, thereby heightening immediate delivery risk. Consequently, local HR and workforce teams must urgently implement succession plans and analyse the potential effects of increased attrition on ongoing project stability.
Unions and sector experts remain unconvinced by the VR proposals; they cite punitive elements that undermine the proposals' fairness and appeal. Specifically, concerns revolve around lengthy clawback periods for those returning to the NHS or other employer bodies, potential penalties to pensions, and complicated repayment schemes. Furthermore, legal and fairness issues have arisen regarding the exemption of government jobs from the clawback provision, whilst the provision subjects many public-facing roles to it. We expect further scrutiny from union statements and parliamentary questions in the coming weeks.
The alteration significantly modifies staff incentives and could accelerate voluntary departures. However, it simultaneously introduces new concerns regarding fairness, the workforce's resilience, and public accountability. In the coming weeks, trade unions, local leaders, and Parliament will test whether exempting government positions was merely a practical workaround, or a policy that simply displaces problems instead of resolving them.
