This site is intended for health professionals only
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

Lansley warns BMA industrial action threat will win ‘no concessions’ on pensions

By Andrew McNicoll | 19 Jan 2012

Health secretary Andrew Lansley has told the BMA ministers will not ‘re-open' key elements of its final pensions offer for further negotiation and has warned the threat or use of industrial action by doctors will secure ‘no concessions', just hours after the union threatened to ballot members.

In a strongly-worded reply to BMA chair Dr Hamish Meldrum's formal rejection of the Government's final offer, Mr Lansley warned industrial action by doctors would ‘harm patients'.  He agreed to meet Dr Meldrum for further discussions over pensions but delivered a blow to the BMA's hopes of securing a ‘significant' shift from Government by insisting that the DH will ‘not reopen the heads of agreement' on pensions.

View Mr Lansley's full response here.

The heads of agreement document sets out the Government's ‘final position' on the main pension reforms, including plans to abolish final salary schemes – a proposal that the BMA has strongly objected to. The ‘contribution rates and structure' remain on the table for ‘continuing discussion' in 2012, raising the possibility of concessions in this area, with the BMA fiercely opposed to current proposals to raise doctors' contribution rate to 14.5% by 2014, compared to a current rate of 8.5%.

Last night the BMA formally rejected the Government's pensions offer after a survey of members showed overwhelming opposition to the deal - but said it would give ministers until next month to improve their offer before deciding whether to hold the first ballot of doctors on industrial action since the 1970s.

After a BMA Council meeting, which considered the results of a survey of members, the BMA warned it will hold an emergency council meeting on 25 February to discuss ‘the options for balloting on industrial action' unless there is a ‘significant change' in the Government's position. The BMA's survey found almost two thirds of members would support some form of industrial action.

Mr Lansley wrote to the BMA: ‘You will understand why I believe this is an excellent deal, which your membership should accept. Of course, we can meet and there are issues we can discuss when we meet, but you know that I will not re-open the heads of agreement which you signed.'

‘I should also, and particularly, emphasise again the point I made to you on the telephone. Industrial action will harm patients. No concessions on the issues you raised in your letter or any other issues will be won through the threat or use or industrial action. Nor will the public accept, nor understand, how you can sign up to an excellent deal and walk away from it on the strength of an informal survey to which less than 36% of all your members responded.'

But a BMA spokesperson responded: ‘It's completely disingenuous for the Government to claim that the BMA 'accepted' the  offer in December.  It has always been the case - as was made very clear to the Government at the time - that we would put the offer to our members.  They have now made their views very clear. The tone the Government is taking in public currently is very unhelpful.  We hope they will reconsider their stance and get back round the table.'

READERS' COMMENTS

Anonymous, GP Partner,
19 Jan 2012
No further movement on commissioning, CQC, revalidation and stopping the use of C&B will not harm patients - best of luck Mr Lansley in your next job which I suspect isnt far away.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Sessional/Locum GP,
19 Jan 2012
I will not work until 68.... ever. I will withdraw from the NHS pension. There is simply nothing anyone will say to me that will make me agree to this one element of the changes.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Practice Manager,
19 Jan 2012
GP's please unite over this issue!!!
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP registrar,
19 Jan 2012
A little perspective:

The last Government election saw a 61.0% turnout, 36.1% voted for your party = 22% voted for your party.

36% of BMA members responded 2/3 voted in support=23.76%

mmmm.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Working for a GP Consortium,
19 Jan 2012
OK that makes it very straightforward then, Mr Lansley DOESNT seem to care about our pensions but he DOES care very much about the reforms and commissioning and this is a critical time for the programme.

As any CCG Chair will know, there will never be a more opportune moment to make a united stand on something that doesnt directly affect patient care but does affect Mr Lansley.

So the position is clear is it not? Identify the soft bits (Commissioning) and firmly SQUEEZE (disengage).

Its so simple, even a child could work it out.

Will the profession choose this over industrial action? I hope so.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
19 Jan 2012
Then Dr Meldrum must WARN Andrew Lansley that he is meddling in matters that his limited understanding does not comprehend. Lansley is an arrogant ****** and the sooner he gets a political hammering the better!
As an aside-The Telegraph reports of doctors that "They also enjoy generous final salary pensions"-This arrogant author can't be bothered to get his facts right-but do National Newspapers care? No...The Leveson inquiry has shown their breath-taking arrogance.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
19 Jan 2012
DR MELDRUM is around 60 years old!!

He will cave in to Lansley and explain to us that "resistance is futile" before retiring on his unchanged pension. Remember the shit always flows south.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
19 Jan 2012
Locum shortage= increase costs of locums viz
GP shortage= more work, no pay increase, QOF shenanigans, increased staff costs and pension reduction as well as all the above.
Supply and demand affects prices and wages in business, but GP's don't count /aren't counted cos they can continue to be treated with the same degree of respect as usual cos they're lilly- livered, do- gooding losers.
Does this little scenario make you feel as good as it does me? I'm sure the BMA are lurving it!
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
20 Jan 2012
First I saw Lansley on TV 18 minths ago - I thought what and arrogant pratt - dangerous -ignorant - all those endeering qualities - the t%$&r must go and therefore will go, or his party will - its only time
But
We must stand
The Pension pot is very healthy and any increase/reduction is a Tax hike for the treasury,
Agree to proportional changes to our pensions when the pot isnt overflowing.
Average (0Votes)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

POLL

Are GPs ordering too many lab tests?Read the full story here

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.