We’re living longer, thanks to GPs – and pensions must reflect that

"Simon Burns is minister of state for the Department of Health"

Simon Burns is actually a lying coniving Politician who deserves to be thrown out at the next election, the 2008 changes have ALREADY increased pension age, and pension contributions, and ensured the public will never pay for the NHS scheme - it will be funded from these contributions,
The proposals are little more than a tax on public servants at all levels,
I am in the 11% with some additional protection, I will retire even earlier than planned due to these changes, and have no intention of paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in additional contributions, coupled with working beyond current retirement age and seeing my life expectancy drop accordingly.

If the BMA has the courage to ask for industrial action, I will support it.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr McGregor. The BMA must show resolve in this matter!

Do we have any GP specific life expectancy rates after retirement?
*and*
Tomorrow's GPs and those in the 2008 scheme will be able to take partial retirement, reducing their hours and drawing some pension, while continuing to build up their pension as they work."
I have never seen this suggestion in any of the discussions: anyone know where this is in the documentation?
I had not realised how low the average GP pension is: if the stated position is that the Consultant trainee will be receiving a pension of £70,000 - I can appreciate the resistance of final salary personnel (if they have considered or understood the implications) to change to a career earnings basis!

MPs are to fight attempts to make them pay more into their pension pots, risking a backlash from the 4 million public sector workers facing increases in their contributions.

Does Mr Burns wish to comment on this article in The Guardian?

"MPs who run the parliamentary pension scheme are to defy a government order set out yesterday that they should face the same reforms to their pensions as other public sector workers, arguing that they are already among the highest contributors in the public sector – paying 11.9% of their salary – and saw a rise in contributions only two years ago."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/14/mps-reform-pensions

First: In Response to KM Hawking

I looked everywhere for the GP life expectancy data and eventually found some very buried in the Government Actuarial Department website. Rather unbelievably they are identical to those for teachers so I don't entirely trust them but they are encouraging and agree with what Simon Burns has said. Does the BMA have any other data?

2nd: WHEN are politicians going to actually listen to us/the BMA rather than constantly put negative spin on what we say? NHS pension scheme is a net contributor to the Treasury now of £2bn per year!! And the public are protected from paying out anymore. It pays for itself LEAVE us alone and sort out your own house.

3rd: Being a good GP is getting harder all the time, all the new guidance, new drugs and new QoF targets, every changing referral pathways and load put onto us from secondary care. I cannot imagine working beyond 60 even and think many GPs will not be able to stay fully up to date as they get older. There is too much to know and too much old information to throw out. We should be able to refer early like Policemen.

I am afraid we are up against it, if the Minister of State doesn't even know that most full time GP Principals pay 22.5% pension already rather than the 8% he believes we pay, then we really have failed to communicate the situation.
I predict that if this is brought in, many GPs will leave the scheme and take out a private pension with greater flexibility. As our high contributions have always quite reasonably helped to subsidise the rates for those lower down the scale, such as our staff, then this may well cause more problems for the NHS superannuation scheme.

Jeremy

This is the best that can be agreed by negotiation? Is he willing to enter into negotiations to dispel the myths he is spreading, or is he just willing to make statements unchalleged.

I (and I'm not the only one ) would like to give him the third degree over his claims. And his willingness to vote for MP's to take on the same pension measures he is stating are the best that can be acheived for everyone else in public service. Apparently by negotiaiting with themselves then MP's can get a better deal so why would anyone settle for this? Surely the MP's deal will be exactly the same as the NHS deal, I await their acceptance of this before I listen to another word a MP has on this.

I propose waiting until we see what MPs negotiate for themselves before deciding what is 'achievable through negotiation' and can be accepted as 'fair'!

Most Gps cannot retire with full pension at age 60 in the current scheme as is often erroneously stated and again perpetuated by Simon Burns. If you want to retire on full pension at 60, you have to buy added years. My added years is costing 9% of earnings and therefore currently I pay 31.5% towards my 49,000 pension. If the changes go ahead it will increase to 37.5%. Why do figures like this never appear in any Newspapers or in any discussions by Mps . Surely the only logical route is to opt out of the pension scheme.

Like many of those who have already commented I fear that a lot of Drs will simply opt out of the pension schem and then the public really will have to subsidise the lower paid NHS workers pensions. I know all three of the senior Drs in this practice are seeking advice about pensions and considering stopping payments to the scheme I doubt they are alone. It is time and long past time that the BMA robustly challenged each and every lie told about GPs earnings/pensions using the media to do so. Time to support the proposal that where a newspaper prints a lie it has to give equal prominemce to the retraction - that would be interesting reading!