We, the undersigned, express no confidence in the organisational change process currently being implemented. Staff across the organisation have described a process that has felt unclear, inconsistent and unstable, with key elements repeatedly clarified, corrected or adjusted only after concerns were raised.

These are not isolated issues. They reflect systemic problems relating to governance, oversight, transparency and the reliability of the methods used to determine people’s futures. Staff deserve better than a process that has felt reactive, difficult to follow and lacking the clarity and assurance expected of a change programme of this scale.

NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB is a statutory NHS organisation responsible for planning and overseeing how NHS money is spent for around 1.7 million residents across a vast geographical area covering Hull, York, East Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire. It commissions and oversees most NHS services in the region — including urgent and emergency care, GP services, community nursing, mental health support and planned hospital care — and is a core member of one of England’s 42 Integrated Care Systems.

A process of this scale and importance must be built on fairness, accuracy, transparency and trust. Staff have reported that these principles have not been upheld, and confidence in the process has been significantly undermined.

This petition is being raised in the public interest. The concerns set out below relate to the fairness, transparency and governance of a process that affects public services, public money and the workforce responsible for delivering care to millions of residents. These issues are systemic and procedural, not personal, and have already been raised through the appropriate internal channels. They are being brought forward publicly only to ensure that organisational change is carried out lawfully, consistently and in a way that protects both staff and the public.

Impact on Staff

Staff have described the process as stressful, confusing and destabilising. Many reported feeling unsettled by information that was unclear, inconsistent or later corrected, leaving them unsure of their status and uncertain about the reliability of the process. Staff also reported that the process required repeated clarification and correction — including reactive changes introduced after the formal consultation had already closed — contributing to a sense that key elements were not fully tested or quality‑assured before implementation.

This has created anxiety, sleeplessness and a sense of being undervalued. Combined with unclear timelines and barriers to participation, these issues have eroded trust and left many feeling unsupported at a time when clarity and stability were most needed.

Risks to the Organisation

Continuing with a process that staff widely perceive as unclear or procedurally flawed carries significant risks, including:

• Legal risks if decisions are based on incomplete information, inconsistent processes or unclear criteria.
• Equality risks if structural or band‑based restrictions create indirect disadvantage.
• Financial risks if flawed processes increase redundancy costs, recruitment costs or the risk of challenge.
• Operational risks if experienced staff leave due to uncertainty or if roles are not matched accurately.
• Reputational risks if confidence in the organisation’s governance and transparency is weakened.

Staff also raised concerns that issues were often identified by the workforce rather than through internal oversight, highlighting potential gaps in governance and quality assurance. For an organisation serving millions, these risks are not theoretical — they affect public confidence, service continuity and the effective use of public funds.

Key Concerns and Why a Restart Is Necessary

1. Fairness in the matching process

• Staff reported that the original matching method could not be applied consistently.
• The process felt unclear and difficult to follow.
• Staff were left uncertain about how decisions were being made

Staff described feeling unsettled by unclear or corrected information at key stages, which undermined confidence in the fairness and reliability of the matching process. When the foundation of the process is unstable, the outcomes cannot be trusted. Restarting the consultation is the only way to rebuild a fair and defensible approach.

2. Incorrect or incomplete information during consultation

• Staff highlighted errors and omissions in consultation materials.
• Key information about structures, roles and workforce numbers was unclear or unavailable.
• Staff were asked to make decisions without essential details.

The need for repeated clarification created confusion and undermined confidence in the accuracy and consistency of the information provided. A consultation based on inaccurate or incomplete information cannot be considered meaningful. Restarting ensures that decisions are informed, transparent and grounded in accurate information.

3. Imbalance in how job descriptions were developed

• Job descriptions were developed using material from only one part of the organisation.
• Staff perceived this as creating imbalance and inconsistency.
• Concerns were raised about whether roles were accurately represented.

Job descriptions underpin matching, evaluation and recruitment. If they are built from a narrow evidence base, they risk embedding structural bias. Restarting the consultation allows for a balanced, organisation‑wide approach that reflects the full range of responsibilities.

4. Governance and transparency concerns

• Staff questioned whether decision‑makers had full visibility of the proposals when the consultation was launched.
• Issues were often identified by staff rather than through internal oversight.
• Communication about key issues was unclear or incomplete.

Concerns were raised that issues were often identified by the workforce rather than through internal oversight, highlighting potential gaps in governance and quality assurance. Staff also reported that reactive changes were introduced after the formal consultation had ended, raising further concerns about transparency and the stability of the process. Restarting is necessary to restore confidence and ensure proper governance.

5. Equality Impact Assessment not available during consultation

• The full Equality Impact Assessment was not available during consultation.
• Staff could not understand how proposals might affect different groups.
• Concerns were raised about whether equality duties were being met.

A consultation cannot be lawful or complete without a full Equality Impact Assessment. Restarting ensures compliance with equality obligations and allows staff to understand the potential impacts before decisions are made.

6. Major process changes introduced after consultation closed

• Staff reported that significant changes were introduced after consultation ended.
• These changes affected access to roles, timelines and assessment methods.
• Staff were not given the opportunity to comment on the revised process.

Staff experienced changes, clarifications and corrections at key stages, including reactive adjustments made after the formal consultation had already closed, contributing to a perception that the process was reactive rather than planned and stable. Restarting is necessary to ensure transparency, fairness and proper engagement.

7. Inconsistent treatment across the workforce

• Staff experienced different processes, timelines and requirements.
• Some were asked to complete additional steps; others were not.
• Communication and expectations varied across the organisation.

Repeated clarifications and corrections contributed to inconsistent experiences across teams. A fair consultation must treat all staff consistently. When different groups experience different processes, outcomes become inequitable and open to challenge. Restarting ensures a single, consistent approach for all staff.

8. Restrictions on job‑matching based on pay band

• Staff raised concerns that access to roles was restricted by current pay band.
• Capable individuals were prevented from being considered for suitable roles.

Band‑based restrictions risk creating structural bias, limiting fair access to opportunities and locking in past grading inconsistencies. Restarting allows for a matching process based on capability and job content rather than historic banding.

9. Concerns about the handling of voluntary redundancy

• Staff reported delays, uncertainty and inconsistent communication.
• Some voluntary redundancy decisions were affected by incomplete assessments.
• Staff felt unclear about their status and next steps.

Voluntary redundancy must be handled with strict fairness and clarity. When the process feels uncertain or inconsistent, it undermines trust and risks unfair outcomes. Restarting allows for a clear, consistent and transparent approach.

10. Barriers to meaningful participation

• Staff reported tight timelines and limited support.
• Those on leave or unwell risked being disadvantaged.
• Some staff felt pressured to make decisions without clarity.

The need for repeated clarification made it harder for staff to participate meaningfully, particularly those already facing practical barriers. Restarting ensures that every member of staff has a genuine opportunity to engage.

Why a Restart Is Necessary

Taken together, these concerns show that the process has not met the standards of fairness, transparency and consistency expected in a major organisational change. These issues are systemic, structural and procedural — not minor or isolated.

Restarting the consultation is the only way to:

• restore trust
• ensure fairness
• comply with equality and governance duties
• provide accurate information
• treat all staff consistently
• protect the integrity of the organisational change process

Conclusion

The workforce cannot be expected to continue through a process that feels unclear, inconsistent and procedurally unstable. Staff have raised these concerns in good faith, seeking only a process that is fair, transparent, lawful and worthy of the workforce it affects.

We therefore call upon the Independent Members of the NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB Board — those responsible for oversight, assurance and governance — to halt the current process, commission an external and impartial review, and ensure that any future consultation is conducted lawfully, transparently and fairly.

Independent oversight is essential to restore confidence, ensure accountability, and rebuild trust in the process and its outcomes.

No Disclosure of Internal Documents

This petition does not reproduce, quote or reference any internal documents. It is based solely on high‑level themes and process concerns raised by staff through appropriate internal channels.

Good‑Faith and Confidentiality Statement

This petition has been written in good faith and in the public interest. It does not disclose confidential information, internal correspondence or identifiable details about individual members of staff. All concerns relate to systemic processes, governance, fairness and equality.