This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

A faulty production line

Government rules out review of pension tax charges

The Government has no intention to review tax charges applied to pension pots that grow too quickly, despite months of criticism from GPs that the issue is adding to workforce problems.

During a parliamentary debate last week, House of Lords Cabinet Office spokesperson Lord Young of Cookham revealed 'there are no plans to have a public consultation on the tax rules' and instead pointed to the proposed introduction of a more flexible NHS pension system.

But when the health secretary last month announced plans for the flexible pension system - which would allow GPs to cut their pension contributions by half, thereby avoiding tax charges - doctors said this was not enough to solve the problem.

The BMA has previously warned GPs are retiring early or cutting their hours of work - some in their 30s - to avoid the tax charges, which are applied to anyone whose pension pot grows by £40,000 or more in a year, or more than £1m in a lifetime.

In response to the revelation that the Government will not be reviewing the tax rules, the BMA stressed how the charges are having an 'unacceptable effect on doctors'.

During the debate last week, Conservative MP Lord Naseby asked the Government 'what steps they are taking to review the tax rules relating to NHS pensions and whether they intend to have a public consultation on the issue?'.

In response, Lord Young said: 'I am aware of concerns raised by NHS doctors about the impact of annual allowance tax charges. Although there are no plans to have a public consultation on the tax rules, on 3 June the secretary of state for health and social care announced his intention to consult on introducing a new pension flexibility for high-earning NHS clinicians affected by annual allowance tax charges.'

A Treasury spokesperson confirmed to Pulse this meant the Government did not intend to review the tax rules.

Under the current NHS pension scheme, there is no flexibility in the amount of money NHS employees contribute towards their pension – with the highest earners being required to pay 14.5% of their salary.

The annual cap on how much pension pots are allowed to increase by, tax-free, has been set at £40,000 since 2016. At the same time, new rules were brought in reducing the amount of tax-free pension benefits that can be accrued over a lifetime - from £1.25m to £1m.

GP leaders have long called for the scheme policies to be reviewed, warning that the annual allowance and concerns over large tax bills have caused serious damages to recruitment and retention.

But during the debate, Lord Young claimed 'less than 1% of taxpayers will be affected by the taper of £40,000 that was introduced, and more than 95% of those approaching pension age will not be affected by the lifetime allowance'.

A BMA spokesperson said: 'The impact of the government's pension changes are having an unacceptable effect on doctors who in many cases are facing large additional, unfair tax bills that force them to consider reducing the hours they work in the NHS or make plans for early retirement.

'Patients cannot afford to lose experienced clinicians, especially at a time of incredible stress on the health service which is suffering from widespread staff shortages.'

Later this month, the Government will launch a consultation on the implementation of the new '50:50' pension section, which would see doctors reduce their normal contributions towards their pension pot by half and receive half the amount of their pension in return.

Lord Young said he will see whether the consultation on the 50:50 session 'can be stretched' to include a broader review of NHS pensions.

He added: 'The secretary of state is willing to discuss other models for pension flexibility; we very much hope that, if we make these changes, high-earning clinicians will be able to attend to more patients while saving for their retirements without incurring significant tax charges.'

Commenting the BMA spokesperson said: 'Lord Young does, in the Lords debate, confirm he will ask if the current planned consultation's scope can be widened, which is a step the BMA has argued for.

'We will continue to make clear to the government that it must reconsider its position which is unfair for doctors and bad for patient care. There needs to be particular, urgent consideration of removing the annual allowance and particularly the tapered annual allowance, which is at the centre of many of the issues being caused by these pension changes.'

Readers' comments (28)

  • So this tells us what we know
    Actually they don’t care if senior doctors leave prematurely
    The rest is lip service
    And at 54 I have been out the pension scheme for 3 years and feel betrayed and let down
    I can and will leave as it suits me
    However I enjoy my practice and patients so for now I carry on

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • already given up hope NI GP

    just been hit with annual allowance charge of £26000 following a previous charge the year before of £8000,LTA protected but long exceeded 3 years ago.57 and retiring in 7 working days time.Its time for the young bucks to put up with this sh*t GOD help them

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A blessing in disguise. Leave now and no worries about CQC, Appraisal, GNM, Pensions, Complaints, GMC etc.
    There is no pleasure as relief from pain.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well, Mr New Prime Minister - don’t say we didn’t warn you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • when are we going to get together and actually strike about our conditions?
    things have gone from bad to worse, we have had the PCN debacle thrust upon us and suddenly a lot of us are wondering how we are going to find the time to both see patients, offered extended access, and jump through the multitude of hoops that are put in our way.
    Those like me at the beginning of our careers are reducing sessions (6/wk now for me), and looking to leave the country as we dont have a royal college that represents us, nor do we have effective negotiation skills at our biggest trade union who is more interested in getting gongs for its london-based 'experts'.

    if we dont fight for this, no-one will.
    and thats the problem - there are too many 'senior' colleagues who are on brilliant terms they just dont care about the profession or the rest of us.

    if I had my time again I would never have gone into medicine as I see friends who are in the financial services having better working lives then me with a quarter of the stress.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The old pension was the main reason to stay in the NHS.... looks like theres no reason left.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ItSaDoGsLiFe

    In years to come people will look back and say what were those idiotic politicians doing?
    NHS falling apart & understaffed & what do they do, actively encourage the most senior & experienced people to walk away!?!
    Hopeless I'm afraid.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment


  • 50 yrs make or activate retirement plans.
    45- 50 yrs,look at alternatives to GP,remembering less tax/NI has a sanitising effect,especially when allied with more time spent on things you enjoy.If you do not,how many quality years will you enjoy beyond 66 yrs and will the pension still be there for you?

    Dr's will NOT 'organise'along usual 'industrial'lines,as they are so fragmented as a group.
    Anything that looks like a contradiction probably is and as such will not endure.
    No one cares,so this IS a war of attrition.As long as the most deluded of politicians can point to the continuation of 'a service'(even in token form)NOTHING will change.All the political party's will follow the lead of the DOH civil servants,because ' none of the emperors have any clothes ',so forget about democratically driven change.
    All problems solve themselves eventually,this one will play out along some variation of the above lines.
    What is most important is that ' lessons are learned '(call it reflection if you like)and that when it comes to rebuilding the system,the 'stateism ' model is not replicated,so you end up with no CQC/performers lists etc and a regulator that just keeps 'the register up to date'.This can be run by an administrator on £50k per year,who is not tainted by having to be 'an insider'to get appointed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say